• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

StarMan said:
You know, the PR people tasked with pumping out spin ... did anyone think maybe just this time, let it go. Just don't. :lol:
Click to expand...

Well, that's their job, even if the spin is clearly BS. Blue Beetle is a mess and disaster everywhere, so blaming weather is not the best excuse to use.

Beetlemania is imminent! They're on their way. Probably stuck in line behind the mob of Keaton fans just showing up for The Flash.
Click to expand...

Indeed. One of the biggest mistakes of The Flash production was believing there was some widespread desire to see Keaton covered in foam again. There was not, and he's not viewed as the best Batman, or the one for this era.
 
I'm watching The Flash again and surprisingly I didn't mind the Chronobowl the first time it showed up. I was actually enjoying some of the effects.

And then.

And then the awful Chronobowl version of Cavill appears.

Everyone says it's too bad we didn't get Cavill at the end of the movie, but if the most we can expect from a Cavill appearance post-JL is a lame digital double or him just ineffectually standing around for a few moments at the very end of a film ( as in Black Adam ), really, what's the point? He should be playing a major role in films, not just turning up as an easter egg at the very end.

The ham-handed removal of Cavill from these films is a stain on the franchise. I don't know what he did to piss the studio off so badly, I guess it was asking for more money?
 
I think I read somewhere that the studio wanted Cavill to film a cameo for one of there movies, and for that cameo to count as one of his contracted appearances. Cavill refused, wanting something more substantial as a part of fulfilling his contract. If this is the case, I don’t blame Cavill for not agreeing to do this.

I’ve also read that Cavill wanted more say in how Superman was portrayed, and that this was another sticking point for the studio.

It’s a shame because Cavill was certainly capable of portraying a crowd-pleasing version of Superman had he been given the material.
 
Last edited:
Set Harth said:
And then the awful Chronobowl version of Cavill appears.

Everyone says it's too bad we didn't get Cavill at the end of the movie, but if the most we can expect from a Cavill appearance post-JL is a lame digital double or him just ineffectually standing around for a few moments at the very end of a film ( as in Black Adam ), really, what's the point? He should be playing a major role in films, not just turning up as an easter egg at the very end.

The ham-handed removal of Cavill from these films is a stain on the franchise. I don't know what he did to piss the studio off so badly, I guess it was asking for more money?
Click to expand...

Part of the bigger picture problem was Zaslav's indecisive reaction to Cavill overall; Dwayne Johnson's campaigning for Cavill to return to the DCEU (first through Back Adam) occurred under the prior WB administration, and was an acknowledgement that Cavill's successful Superman movie and other appearances were what audiences supported & wanted. Zaslav appeared to be on board with this, hence the announcement that Cavill was back, and the ultimately cut scenes he shot for The Flash.
However, it seems once Zaslav (and others) began their reactionary screwing around with the DCEU (e.g., not allowing Affleck the go-ahead on his Batman sequel / adding Keaton to the Flash movie as a sign that Affleck was done / removing Keaton from Aquaman 2 because Batgirl--where he was going to serve as some "mentor" figure--was permanently removed from production, etc.) culminating in Cavill's Flash scenes cut--blamed (fairly or unfairly) on the hiring of Gunn and Safran for the proposed reboot, it seems Cavill's continued connection to DC was on shaky ground after the Black Adam period of negotiation.

Of course, it makes no sense for Zaslav, et al., to cut Cavill from any remaining DCEU films if that entire film universe was heading for the chopping block in any case.
 
Arleen Sorkin, who provided the voice of Harley Quinn on no less than six DCAU productions (Batman: The Animated Series, The New Batman Adventures, Superman: The Animated Series, Static Shock, Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker, and Justice League) and was Paul Dini's inspiration for the Harley Quinn character, has passed on at 67.
 
Last edited:
I think sometimes people overlook how strong the acting was on the Batman animated series, especially its initial incarnation. Sorkin was excellent in the role, and largely responsible for the character’s breakthrough into the cultural consciousness. May she rest in peace.
 
Supervisor 194 said:
I think sometimes people overlook how strong the acting was on the Batman animated series, especially its initial incarnation. Sorkin was excellent in the role, and largely responsible for the character’s breakthrough into the cultural consciousness. May she rest in peace.
Click to expand...

Really, Batman TAS had a lot of boring, clunker episodes. But what made even them watchable was the quality of the animation (and even that got choppy at times) and the lovely voice acting.
 
It’s a shame because Cavill was certainly capable of portraying a crowd-pleasing version of Superman had he been given the material.
Click to expand...

Oh. Thank goodness that never happened. The idea of Warner Brothers returning to a "crowd-pleasing version" of Superman makes me rather noxious. I hope that one day, Cavill will appreciate his version of the character.
 
Dee1891 said:
Oh. Thank goodness that never happened. The idea of Warner Brothers returning to a "crowd-pleasing version" of Superman makes me rather noxious. I hope that one day, Cavill will appreciate his version of the character.
Click to expand...

All we can hope for, from a movie at least, is that we enjoy it. I hope Gunn’s Superman is enjoyable and catches on.

I don’t get the desire for expectations to be so subverted that the general audience rejects the product, though. For example, I am not a fan of the Masters of the Universe, so I basically ignore it. For those who love it, great, fantastic. But I don’t approach it and think, if someone changed the core of it and the general aesthetic of it to something I wanted, I might give it a shot. Why should fans of that property lose out on what they love about it in order to get someone like me to give it a chance?
 
Supervisor 194 said:
All we can hope for, from a movie at least, is that we enjoy it. I hope Gunn’s Superman is enjoyable and catches on.

I don’t get the desire for expectations to be so subverted that the general audience rejects the product, though. For example, I am not a fan of the Masters of the Universe, so I basically ignore it. For those who love it, great, fantastic. But I don’t approach it and think, if someone changed the core of it and the general aesthetic of it to something I wanted, I might give it a shot. Why should fans of that property lose out on what they love about it in order to get someone like me to give it a chance?
Click to expand...

What are you worried about? The crowd-pleasing version of Superman probably has a very good chance of returning.
 
JD said:
And one of the shows EPs.
Click to expand...

It's pretty typical these days for a show's star to be credited as an executive producer. The title gets handed out to countless people who aren't actively involved in the writing or producing but just get a cut of the profits. Often the star is directly involved in the creative decision-making, but the EP credit has become so meaningless these days that it's impossible to tell from the title alone.
 
Christopher said:
It's pretty typical these days for a show's star to be credited as an executive producer. The title gets handed out to countless people who aren't actively involved in the writing or producing but just get a cut of the profits. Often the star is directly involved in the creative decision-making, but the EP credit has become so meaningless these days that it's impossible to tell from the title alone.
Click to expand...
In her case, her production company is one of the companies making the show.
 
Nerys Myk said:
In her case, her production company is one of the companies making the show.
Click to expand...

That's just another way of saying someone is an executive producer. Often a "production company" is just the person incorporating themselves for business purposes, or just an investment firm that provides financial backing for productions, like Rod Roddenberry's company or the Chinese companies that co-produced the Kelvin Star Trek movies. Only some production companies are actively involved in the storytelling or filmmaking side of the process. As I said, it's not uncommon for a lead actor to have approval over content, but the credit alone doesn't confirm that.
 
Dee1891 said:
What are you worried about? The crowd-pleasing version of Superman probably has a very good chance of returning.
Click to expand...

Audiences can take that version or leave it, since the DCEU's Superman film was successful, instead of being discarded right out of the gates like Superman Returns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top