DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[JD]

I'm guessing it'll be like the first DC Showcase DVD, which combined a new Superman/Shazam short with three shorts previously released as bonus features on other DVDs. There have been five other shorts to date -- Catwoman, Sgt. Rock, Death, The Phantom Stranger, and Adam Strange. But Catwoman was from 2011 and the other four all came out within the past year or so, so I figure it'll be those four.

Yeah, it's Sgt. Rock, Death and The Phantom Stranger. I thought Catwoman was included in the Superman/Shazam: The Return of Black Adam, but I checked on Amazon, and I it's not. So it looks like Catwoman will the be only short not in one of the collections.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

I agree, but since I hated Snyder's tone, I'd be fine with that. That's what I like about JL as it exists, the overwriting of Snyder's pretentious darkness with something truer to the spirit of the Justice League. It's the Snyderish parts that remain that I'm not fond of.

I can understand that. But, when done well, I sometimes enjoy a bit of edgelord Snyder. I don't think that he has any business making Superman movies but he was born to make Batman movies!

Also, I think that consistency can be more important than raw quality sometimes. It's like, if I'm eating a rice bowl, and I say, "This Chinese food is good but I usually like Mexican food better." Then the chef takes my rice bowl, dumps the contents onto a tortilla, wraps it up into a burrito, and says, "There, is that better?" No, not really. Sometimes a thing just needs to be the thing that it already is.

 

[Christopher]

I can understand that. But, when done well, I sometimes enjoy a bit of edgelord Snyder.

I think he can create striking visuals, but has a terrible sense of how to put a narrative together. He exemplifies a wider problem in Hollywood, the assumption of many directors that all they need to know is the visual and editorial side of filmmaking and that will somehow magically make them good at writing. So we get a ton of movies with excellent style but incoherent substance.

I don't think that he has any business making Superman movies but he was born to make Batman movies!

I think he's a poor choice for either one. He doesn't bring anything of worth to Batman; he just cribs stuff from The Dark Knight Returns, which is not the end-all and be-all of Batman.

Also, I think that consistency can be more important than raw quality sometimes.

Except that Snyder's films are inconsistent in themselves. MoS had story elements that were tossed in without any in-movie justification just because they were expected, and ideas that failed to come together or worked against each other. And BvS was consistent only in its staggering incoherence as a narrative.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

I think he can create striking visuals, but has a terrible sense of how to put a narrative together. He exemplifies a wider problem in Hollywood, the assumption of many directors that all they need to know is the visual and editorial side of filmmaking and that will somehow magically make them good at writing. So we get a ton of movies with excellent style but incoherent substance.

FIlmmaking is just as much a visual medium as it is a verbal one. Sometimes you can have a well written movie with uninspired visuals. Sometimes you can have a visual masterpiece with a mediocre script. Sometimes you just sit back and let the music do all the heavy lifting *cough*StarWarsprequels*cough*. It's just different styles of filmmaking. You can't intellectualize Snyder's movies. You just kinda have to let the experience wash over you and feel the feelings. Now, this doesn't work when he's trying to adapt material that's intellectually dense like Watchmen but something like Sucker Punch is a perfect vehicle for his style. (It helps that Sucker Punch is 90% dream sequences. )

He doesn't bring anything of worth to Batman; he just cribs stuff from The Dark Knight Returns, which is not the end-all and be-all of Batman.

Yeah, but given all of the other different Batman movies we've gotten over the years, it's nice to see someone go all-in on the Frank Miller stuff every once in a while. I don't like it as much as the Tim Burton or Christopher Nolan movies but I enjoy the variety.

IMO, no other hero invites quite such a variety of stylistic reinvention as Batman. I get really edgy whenever someone steps too far out of line with Superman or Spider-Man. But I'd be happy with a billion contradictory Batmans!

Except that Snyder's films are inconsistent in themselves. MoS had story elements that were tossed in without any in-movie justification just because they were expected, and ideas that failed to come together or worked against each other. And BvS was consistent only in its staggering incoherence as a narrative.

Obviously, I'm speaking more about internal consistency. You may not like Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman. But if you watch both movies, you can't deny that they're part of the same story and made by the same guy. Justice League is clearly not made by the same guy and doesn't fit as part of the whole. Any tile, no matter how beautiful, can be wrong if it doesn't fit in with the larger mosaic.

But if you didn't like the Snyder movies to begin with, I can understand not caring about that. It just so happens that I do find Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman to be interesting, if flawed, movies. But I can relate to your sentiment. Part of the reason why I like The Last Jedi is because I really didn't like The Force Awakens, so I enjoyed seeing The Last Jedi methodically dismantle everything that The Force Awakens set-up. But even then, the 2 movies still fit together in a perverse way. It looks like somebody did it on purpose. Justice League has almost nothing to do with the previous films apart from having some of the same actors. It's more like "Studio Notes: The Movie."

 

[Christopher]

FIlmmaking is just as much a visual medium as it is a verbal one. Sometimes you can have a well written movie with uninspired visuals. Sometimes you can have a visual masterpiece with a mediocre script.

It's not about "sometimes." It's about an industry-wide pattern of contempt for the written word. There are countless modern films that put enormous talent and care and artistry into every aspect except the writing, that treat writers as interchangeable contractors and chop up and intermix different writers' script drafts like assembling a ransom note, with the end result being countless films that are gorgeously made and acted, but that flop with audiences and critics because their stories are nonsensical and don't hold together. It's a pervasive pattern that I've seen over and over again, that's resulted in dozens of multigazillion-dollar blockbusters that flopped and lost money because nobody bothered to build a solid foundation for the building before making it beautiful on the surface. Hollywood has forgotten "If it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage."

It's just different styles of filmmaking.

No, it isn't. I've seen plenty of other style-over-substance filmmakers whose works were nowhere near as incoherent and self-undermining as Snyder's work. Some things are style; some things are fundamental matters of competence.

Yeah, but given all of the other different Batman movies we've gotten over the years, it's nice to see someone go all-in on the Frank Miller stuff every once in a while.

And now it's been done. I'm ready to move on from it.

Obviously, I'm speaking more about internal consistency. You may not like Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman. But if you watch both movies, you can't deny that they're part of the same story and made by the same guy.

I'm speaking about internal consistency too. I'm speaking about the fact that the films do not hold together as narratives and are assembled with startling incompetence. And they're not that consistent with each other either, because MoS reaches some impressive heights before being utterly ruined by the excesses of the third act, while BvS is a pretty uniform mass of incoherent clutter. Yes, the same excesses and failings are visible in both, but they're at once more tempered and more pervasive in the latter.

Justice League has almost nothing to do with the previous films apart from having some of the same actors. It's more like "Studio Notes: The Movie."

Sometimes studio notes make a film better. The problem with JL isn't the changes. The problem is the mess that required them in the first place.

 

[USS Firefly]

There are countless modern films that put enormous talent and care and artistry into every aspect except the writing, that treat writers as interchangeable contractors and chop up and intermix different writers' script drafts like assembling a ransom note, with the end result being countless films that are gorgeously made and acted, but that flop with audiences and critics because their stories are nonsensical and don't hold together.

Makers me think of Star Trek Nemisis and the Star Wars Sequels. Everything looks so good, except for the story, they were a mess

 

[Christopher]

Makers me think of Star Trek Nemisis and the Star Wars Sequels. Everything looks so good, except for the story, they were a mess

I don't agree with those examples, but it's not worth getting into.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Sometimes studio notes make a film better. The problem with JL isn't the changes. The problem is the mess that required them in the first place.

Sometimes, yes. But I think that tends to be when the notes are pretty minor. I think that, when a studio finds themselves in a situation like Justice League or Solo where they need to reshoot HUGE chunks of the movie in order to "fix" it, it's usually not worth it. It's expensive, generates a lot of bad publicity, and if you really think the movie is that bad, it's probably not salvageable anyway. Best to just roll the dice and release it as is. Who knows? Maybe it will speak to someone, even if it doesn't reach the kind of broad audience that you intended when you started. Maybe it will acquire a devoted cult following that will obsessively buy every piece of high-end collectible merch that you put out and will keep the film marginally relevant for years to come. But if you water it down, you're throwing good money after bad and will probably create something that barely appeals to anyone. Apart from Back to the Future (which is a special case anyway), can anyone name me a movie that went through that many reshoots and it turned out well?

 

[Christopher]

Sometimes, yes. But I think that tends to be when the notes are pretty minor.

Not always. There's no sense generalizing about these things; it depends on the specific instance. There are cases where studio notes saved a movie, made it far better.

https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a818779/movies-improved-by-studio-meddling/

I think that, when a studio finds themselves in a situation like Justice League or Solo where they need to reshoot HUGE chunks of the movie in order to "fix" it, it's usually not worth it.

The problem with "usually" is Sturgeon's Law. Ninety percent of everything is crud, but that means ten percent isn't. Just because a certain thing usually doesn't turn out great doesn't mean it can never turn out great, because nothing usually turns out great. Sure, most studio notes don't improve a film, but most actors who audition don't get the part, most designs the production artists submit don't get accepted by the director, etc. Heck, 96.67% of Major League Baseball teams in any given year don't win the World Series. But they still play. "Usually" doesn't matter. The point of doing anything is to strive to rise above the usual.

Apart from Back to the Future (which is a special case anyway), can anyone name me a movie that went through that many reshoots and it turned out well?

https://www.ranker.com/list/best-movie-reshoots-of-all-time/jordan-breeding

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

https://www.ranker.com/list/best-movie-reshoots-of-all-time/jordan-breeding

That list means nothing. Apart from Solo, which I already mentioned, and possibly Rogue One, none of the movies on that list underwent the substantial post-production reshooting & restructuring that Justice League did. That's my point. It's one thing for a studio to say, "Let's add a couple scenes to more prominently feature this character or to punch up the relationship between these characters." It's quite another thing to say, as you seem to be saying, "This movie is shit. Let's turn it into a totally different movie." The former often succeeds in polishing an already fundamentally sound film. The latter nearly always ends in disaster, or at best, mediocrity.

 

[Christopher]

It's quite another thing to say, as you seem to be saying, "This movie is shit. Let's turn it into a totally different movie." The former often succeeds in polishing an already fundamentally sound film. The latter nearly always ends in disaster, or at best, mediocrity.

I just don't buy such blanket generalizations, as I've said. It's not what you do that determines quality, but how you do it. Just look at all the times that a dozen other filmmakers try to copy one hit film and end up producing flops. If it were what you did that mattered, then every copy of a hit would be an equal hit, but that is quite obviously not the case. The original and the imitators are trying to do the exact same thing, but it usually fails and only occasionally works, because of Sturgeon's Law.

So the converse must be true as well -- even if a given tactic fails the majority of the time, that doesn't mean it can't succeed in the right cases, where the conditions line up just right to make it successful. Filmmaking is a complex thing. It's hard to get it right because there are a lot of different aspects that have to work out at the same time. So success will inevitably be less common than failure. But by the same token, in that minority of cases where all the parts work, then the whole will be terrific. That's why blanket generalizations are so deeply unrealistic.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Just to mess with everyone Snyder should have Batman in the and gray and blue suit with the yellow oval.

That would not bother me at all.

I agree. I also think that it's a VERY hard needle to thread. Upon further rewatches, I'm actually pretty impressed with how Henry Cavil balances between being an exceptionally noble, virtuous man but also a man, not some perfect god. And the notion of putting that brand of Superman into a dark, cynical world is a very interesting choice.

That was the point which was clear from the start, unless someone (not you) went into the theatre with some false expectation that Superman had to be like some version that was not relevant to the film universe being created. MoS' Superman rejects being some always bizarre Uncle/God who grins over the population. He's aware that he's not human, but in his heart of hearts so desperately wants to assimilate, which is one of the most realistic, relatable traits of any Superman adaptation. Its the reason his adoptive father wanted him to avoid revealing himself, as he knew his species well enough to know there were dangers Clark would face if he was exposed.

My issue with Man of Steel & Batman v. Superman is that the omniscient narrative perspective of the filmmakers seems to side a bit more with that fallen world than it does with Superman. They seem overly suspicious, like they don't really believe that someone as powerful as Superman could also be that altruistic.

Because Synder, et al., paid close attention to human history; it is extremely rare for any powerful person/leader to have been all in for the service of all and not himself in one way or another. Being something that movie world's population never experienced before--a real life extraterrestrial--would instantly trigger mistrust from a large part of the population because there's no logical reason to believe an alien would just show up and be everyone's best pal. That's the reason so many older live action Superman productions were fundamentally flawed--because human beings just grin at a superpowered alien as if they had some reason (or previous experience) which would open the door to trust, when there's so little of it among their fellow humans, as well.

But then, nearly every Batman movie since The Dark Knight has at least briefly raised the question of whether Batman does more harm than good merely by existing.

Which is why those films work so beautifully; audiences seeing a fantasy character in a setting that is more similar to their own (than earlier adaptations) expect to see reactions / questions that would be seen/asked about a superpowered and/or world class fighter (with tech beyond any nation's defense programs) electing himself to mete out punishment with no official allegiance to any standing government. Few would trust anyone in that position.

It still would have been a complete tonal mismatch with what Snyder had already set-up with Man of Steel & Batman v. Superman.

The very reason Whedon was uttlerly wrong for the JL, as the results laid out for all to see.

I think that Snyder's Justice League will end up being far more interesting than anything that Whedon could have come up with.

I think that's obvious; its the world Synder created with care--there's a consistent creative voice/tone/purpose throughout most of the DCEU, so it stands to reason that the man who brought it together would know the best way to deliver a DC team movie, which is not interchangeable with the tone/handling of a MCU film.

And, between the black suit, Darkseid, possibly Martian Manhunter, & some other stuff, it sounds pretty cool!

Agreed.

While Superman Returns has its problems, its depiction of Superman isn't one of them. It's more to do with the world around him, which not only wasn't updated to the modern era but in fact seemed to regress. While Donner's Metropolis felt like a kid-friendly take on All the President's Men, Singer's was more like a sepia-filtered Art Deco style designed to evoke faded newspapers from the 1930s.

It was doomed to fail; at the time the SR project was announced as an official/unofficial sequel to the Donner film/era, many fans were not at all happy about it, as the Donner approach was not fit for the 21st century, and moviegoers expecting something that would speak to them and the world they understood, and that was not the content from a film from 1978.

Also, the climax involved throwing a giant rock into space.

...and that's the least of its problems.

Also, Jason Lane! Did anyone really want to see that story thread continue?

No. The entire idea was so out-of-nowhere and a pointless "shocker" that would tease the audience into wanting to see a sequel along the lines of The Adventures of Superman and Son. Thankfully, the audience did not care for any of it.

 

[JD]

The comics with Clark and his some Jon seem to be pretty popular, and we're also getting two Supersons in Superman & Lois, so I'd say there is at least some interest on the audience's part.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The comics with Clark and his some Jon seem to be pretty popular, and we're also getting two Supersons in Superman & Lois, so I'd say there is at least some interest on the audience's part.

He sort of has two sons in comics right now. Jon and Conner, the Superboy who came out of the Reign of the Supermen arc back in the 90's,who seems to be a survivor of a vanished timeline.

 

[Christopher]

I've been wondering if one of the sons in Superman & Lois might be a version of Conner, although we've already got Conner in Titans, and he's one of the better aspects of the show. (Though Krypto is even better.)

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

^Admittedly, the fan landscape is far different now than it was in 2006. That was still early days for the modern age of superhero movies. Back then, I think we were more interested in seeing "definitive" interpretations of characters. Now, since superhero movies have been dominating the cinematic landscape for nearly 2 decades, I think we're more open to alternative ideas.

It was doomed to fail; at the time the SR project was announced as an official/unofficial sequel to the Donner film/era, many fans were not at all happy about it, as the Donner approach was not fit for the 21st century, and moviegoers expecting something that would speak to them and the world they understood, and that was not the content from a film from 1978.

When Superman Returns was announced as a sequel to the Donner films, I was excited about it. Partly because I didn't realize just how faithful Singer was going to be to the Donner films. I expected that making the movie a sequel was supposed to be a shortcut, so that they could skip over the origin story and not have to explain too much about who Superman & the other characters are. Also, I expected it to be a statement of intent; that this was not going to be a "dark, gritty" re-imagining but rather a return to the optimism of the earlier films (which I'm sure seemed quaint and out of place in 1978 too. That wasn't exactly the happiest of times in American history. Remember the malaise?). What I didn't expect was for it to be a $250 million fanfilm.

So the converse must be true as well -- even if a given tactic fails the majority of the time, that doesn't mean it can't succeed in the right cases, where the conditions line up just right to make it successful. Filmmaking is a complex thing. It's hard to get it right because there are a lot of different aspects that have to work out at the same time. So success will inevitably be less common than failure. But by the same token, in that minority of cases where all the parts work, then the whole will be terrific. That's why blanket generalizations are so deeply unrealistic.

Perhaps, but name me ONE example of a movie undergoing substantial thematic & stylistic restructuring on the scale of Justice League and the end result turning out well.

I have some significant criticisms of Snyder's DC films and his misguided interpretation of the Superman universe. But the proper response to that is to not watch his movies or to make other movies, not mutilate a movie that Snyder already made to make it sound more like a Whedon movie.

I mean, I think that Batman & Robin is a turd. But I don't think that it can be fixed by getting Tim Burton to do a bunch of reshoots.

Because Synder, et al., paid close attention to human history; it is extremely rare for any powerful person/leader to have been all in for the service of all and not himself in one way or another. Being something that movie world's population never experienced before--a real life extraterrestrial--would instantly trigger mistrust from a large part of the population because there's no logical reason to believe an alien would just show up and be everyone's best pal. That's the reason so many older live action Superman productions were fundamentally flawed--because human beings just grin at a superpowered alien as if they had some reason (or previous experience) which would open the door to trust, when there's so little of it among their fellow humans, as well.

The other characters trust Superman because the audience trusts Superman because the audience knows that Superman is inherently trustworthy. To me, that's the point of Superman. While there's room for him to be developed as a human character, the main point is for him to be a reassuring icon. Because the real world doesn't have a benevolent superhero who can save all of us. So we escape into a fictional world that does. When the people of Metropolis cheer for Superman, they're a stand-in for us cheering for Superman. It's not realistic but neither is the concept of Superman to begin with. And while I'd be interested in seeing a movie about Superman's noble spirit being able to rise above the cynicism of the "real world," I don't think that Snyder's movies achieve that.

 

[The Realist]

The other characters trust Superman because the audience trusts Superman because the audience knows that Superman is inherently trustworthy. To me, that's the point of Superman. While there's room for him to be developed as a human character, the main point is for him to be a reassuring icon. Because the real world doesn't have a benevolent superhero who can save all of us. So we escape into a fictional world that does. When the people of Metropolis cheer for Superman, they're a stand-in for us cheering for Superman. It's not realistic but neither is the concept of Superman to begin with.

I hope my soul never becomes so shrunken and withered that I feel the need to suck the fun and fantasy, the joy and optimism and light out of a character like Superman, in pursuit of the almighty "realism."

(And while Superman Returns has its flaws, I'll take it over Snyder's puerile grimdark nonsense anytime.)

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

I will say that Snyder's grimdark style has improved and become more deliberate & sophisticated over time. I recently rewatched Watchmen and THAT is puerile. I was so shocked by it's "edgy" immaturity that I had to doublecheck what his age was at the time. It feels like it should have been directed by a 14-year-old, not a 43-year-old. But nowadays, it seems like his DC movies are finally digesting the themes that the Watchmen comics were about in the first place.

 

[Noname Given]

Interesting. It has the same voice cast as Batman: Under the Red Hood from a decade ago, which was about Jason Todd's return from the "dead" and featured the events of A Death in the Family as a prologue. And it has the same director, Brandon Vietti. So is it in the same continuity (if that means anything with the alternate-paths gimmick)?

It also uses footage directly from that released animated film in the promo so I'll bet that if you choose "Robin Dies" that's the film you get to see.

 

[The Realist]

I recently rewatched Watchmen and THAT is puerile. I was so shocked by it's "edgy" immaturity that I had to doublecheck what his age was at the time. It feels like it should have been directed by a 14-year-old, not a 43-year-old.

That's the thing about grimdark. It imagines itself to be sophisticated and adult, but it's really the posturing of intellectual adolescence, the creative equivalent of dressing all in black and worrying your parents. True maturity, thank God, recognizes that life includes beauty and hope, brightness and joy and love and laughter, not just hopelessness and despair. That's shallow nihilistic nonsense. And I'm afraid I can't agree that Snyder's grown beyond it, or is ever likely to.