DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[thribs]

That is always going to happen with John Stewart. If he isn't as dull as a plank of wood then you are not doing his character properly.
The Long Halloween was good. I felt they did that type of story better than the latest live action Batman movie and it was still shorter than that if you add both parts together. The Justice Society WWII was also good and I liked the stuff with Shakespeare in it. I admit I didn't see that coming. The short movie, Kamandi that came with the blu ray also tied in nicely with the movie.

 

[Supervisor 194]

I love the Legion of Super-Heroes but I passed on the movie after seeing a spoiler about how they depict one of my favorite characters.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

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.

They are allowing other productions to go ahead, with the Elseworlds label. Prime example being the Matt Reeves Batman films and spin-off TV shows, which Matt Reeves has relatively free reign for.

Now, with the DCU, they want the actors to stay consistent across all media. Which, honestly, is a nice goal, but I can't see it being successful 100 percent. Even the MCU has had to replace some actors, and that was only in one medium.

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?

The Joker is not a crime boss. At least not in the traditional sense of organized crime. Well, maybe in Batman '89, and he took out the traditional organized crime bosses in TDK, but other than that, he's doing his own thing, which is mostly causing chaos and mayhem, not running illegal clubs and selling drugs. So, Sionis wouldn't have had to take over Gotham's crime scene from the Joker, because the Joker never was in charge of organized crime, not even in the DCEU. Yes, there is that one scene in the club where he is bargaining a criminal business deal, but there's no reason to believe he did that sort of thing all the time (more likely a way to fund his next crazy scheme), and there was certainly nothing saying he was in charge over all of Gotham's organized crime. In most interpretations, he leaves that sort of thing to characters like Penguin and, you know, Black Mask.

As to leaving Gotham, he does road trips all the time. He's often been in Metropolis (which is only across the river in the DCEU, which was always dumb). In the classic comic story A Death in the Family, he was in Ethiopia and later as UN Ambassador for Iran in Washington and New York. Hell, in the DCEU, he was in Central City, wasn't he?

 

[Mage]

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?

The entire concept of the movie was to show Harley fully detached from the Joker. She doesn't care, and as an extensison of that, we shouldn't either and focus on her life in the same way that she does.
LIke her, we accept he's no longer part of her life and move on.
To put a focus on the Joker, we take away from the fact that this is all about Harley living her own life.

 

[theenglish]

The entire concept of the movie was to show Harley fully detached from the Joker. She doesn't care, and as an extensison of that, we shouldn't either and focus on her life in the same way that she does.
LIke her, we accept he's no longer part of her life and move on.
To put a focus on the Joker, we take away from the fact that this is all about Harley living her own life.

That's exactly right. The same as with Suicide Squad (the first one). The Joker was only there to serve Harley's story.

 

[Christopher]

That is always going to happen with John Stewart. If he isn't as dull as a plank of wood then you are not doing his character properly.

Fans of the DC Animated Universe would disagree. And the problem with the movie wasn't that John wasn't interesting, it was that the script often didn't seem interested in focusing on him.

 

[Dee1891]

The entire concept of the movie was to show Harley fully detached from the Joker. She doesn't care, and as an extensison of that, we shouldn't either and focus on her life in the same way that she does.
LIke her, we accept he's no longer part of her life and move on.
To put a focus on the Joker, we take away from the fact that this is all about Harley living her own life.

I don't agree. Harley spent a good deal of the movie struggling to get over being dumped by the Joker. Why did he dump her in the first place? Why did Black Mask believe that the Joker's disappearance was the right opportunity to become Gotham's top criminal?

The Joker's rejection of Harley and his disappearance has served as catalysts for Harley and Ronan's arcs in the movie. But his actions were never explained.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

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

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

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.

Agreed. The film needs to serve my interests, which has nothing to do with anything others think or post on various platforms. Most of the DCEU more than lived up to my expectations for / interest in superhero movie adaptations unlike any project produced before, with the Nolan Bat-films & the Alyn Superman serials being the only exception (on equal footing).

 

[Mage]

I don't agree. Harley spent a good deal of the movie struggling to get over being dumped by the Joker. Why did he dump her in the first place? Why did Black Mask believe that the Joker's disappearance was the right opportunity to become Gotham's top criminal?

The Joker's rejection of Harley and his disappearance has served as catalysts for Harley and Ronan's arcs in the movie. But his actions were never explained.

Again, that's the point of the movie. Harley finding her own life. WHY they broke up doesn't matter. Her journey does. You personally want explanations. That doesn't mean the movie needs them. Those are two separate things.

 

[Christopher]

I don't agree. Harley spent a good deal of the movie struggling to get over being dumped by the Joker. Why did he dump her in the first place?

That's implied in the opening animation. Harley was the brains behind some of his capers, and when she tried to assert herself and get some credit for her efforts, his fragile toxically masculine ego couldn't tolerate it, so he kicked her out. Not unlike the events of the original Batman: The Animated Series Harley's origin-story comic (and later episode) Mad Love.

 

[Anwar]

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.

Ah yes, this elusive "formula" no one can ever really define...

 

[Noname Given]

(I enjoyed the movie):

The Hollywood Reporter: Box Office: ‘Shazam! Fury of the Gods’ Heads for Dismal $30M Domestic Opening
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/shazam-fury-gods-box-office-opening-1235355902/

DC and New Line Cinema’s Shazam! Fury of the Gods is feeling scorned.

The movie opened to $11.7 million on Friday, including $3.4 million in previews, for a projected weekend debut of around $30 million.

That would mark one of the worst starts for a major Hollywood superhero film, as well as one of the worst for a title in the DC Cinematic Universe, including those released during the pandemic. And it’s well behind the $53.5 million domestic opening of the first Shazam! in 2019, not adjusted for inflation...

 

[thribs]

All this nonsense with Gunn probably affected it. People know it doesn’t matter and so they are ignoring it.

 

[The Realist]

 

[Tosk]

All this nonsense with Gunn probably affected it. People know it doesn’t matter and so they are ignoring it.

I do see that attitude around, unfortunately. Some people just aren't satisfied with a movie being good unto itself. These people remind me of Trek fans who describe an episode as "filler" just because it doesn't contribute to an arc.

 

[Christopher]

All this nonsense with Gunn probably affected it. People know it doesn’t matter and so they are ignoring it.

Most casual moviegoers probably don't pay attention to studio politics, and they certainly don't assume a standalone movie "doesn't matter." And it's the casual moviegoers who make up the majority of a profitable film's audience -- people who don't care about franchises and series continuity and all that, but just want something to take a date or a family to on their day off, or want to see an actor they like, or whatever. The hardcore fanbase that follows the behind-the-scenes news and worries about "cinematic universes" is not a large enough percentage of the audience to make a critical difference.

Also, whether you're a casual filmgoer or a hardcore fan, it is dysfunctional to define the worth of a film solely in terms of continuity. Movies aren't study materials you have to memorize for some future test, they're works of entertainment to be enjoyed while you watch them. It's the immediate experience itself that matters. Why does it even matter if a film has sequels or not unless you like the film? First things first.

 

[thribs]

I that case it’s poor promotion. It hasn’t been heavily promoted like some other movies recently.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

I that case it’s poor promotion. It hasn’t been heavily promoted like some other movies recently.

I've seen plnty of the trailers. Maybe the trailers aren't very good?
It looks more like Dungeons and Dragons than a sequel to the first to me. Kind of jarring to go from "Superhero meets Big" to Game of Thrones.

 

[Rich Watson]

I that case it’s poor promotion. It hasn’t been heavily promoted like some other movies recently.

I don't know where you are in the world but I've seen plenty of ads on TV, at the cinema, posters and everything else here. None of them made it look like something worth going to, though.