Spoilers Now that we've gotten Batman v Superman, what are your thoughts on the DCEU?
- Thread starter JD
- Start date
I also think John Stewart is a good choice--he worked in the DCAU quite well. Also, Cyborg has been a founding member of the Justice League since the post-Flashpoint reboot so his inclusion in the movie seems logical to me. In current continuity he was never a Teen Titan.
Even though there are a lot of elements "unique" to things we see on screen, it seems that the WB have really been pulling a lot of material from the new 52. It makes sense that they want to have some sort of synergy with the on screen material, similar to what Marvel has done.What does current continuity have to do with the DCEU?
I have the impression that even viewers who dislike BvS are intrigued by the upcoming DC movies. (The fact that Snyder won't direct them all doubtless helps).
I think Suicide Squad could be a terrifically smart move on the part of DC - creating a roster of memorable villains to use in future movies, which is something Marvel can't boast of, except for Loki.
I think centering everything on the Justice League is a mistake, as casual viewers will inevitably see it as an imitation of the Avengers. They should instead do something Marvel hasn't tried yet - team-ups. Batman/Superman is the obvious precedent, but there's no reason it couldn't happen with other heroes in the future.
I think Suicide Squad could be a terrifically smart move on the part of DC - creating a roster of memorable villains to use in future movies, which is something Marvel can't boast of, except for Loki.
I think centering everything on the Justice League is a mistake, as casual viewers will inevitably see it as an imitation of the Avengers. They should instead do something Marvel hasn't tried yet - team-ups. Batman/Superman is the obvious precedent, but there's no reason it couldn't happen with other heroes in the future.
Not at all. Bay makes gung-ho crowd-pleasers with a style that's pretty generic apart from stuff blowing up all the time. Snyder likes to work big too, but his approach is more dreamlike and less naturalistic, more twisted and less heroic.
That certainly describes me.
That's a good point. Maybe instead of going the JL route, they should've done something more along the lines of The Brave and the Bold, with an ongoing main hero who teams up with a different featured hero in each movie. Batman/Superman, Batman/Flash, Batman/Cyborg, etc. Or maybe mix it up and do Wonder Woman/Aquaman or the like. (I didn't consider any Superman/X teamups, since WB doesn't seem to have any faith in Superman as a lead.)
Not sure "heroic" is the word, given that Snyder's apparently a Randian Objectivist who's skeptical of the very idea of heroism and determined to deconstruct it. And though their styles differ, they have some basic commonalities, like prioritizing imagery over story and character, isolated set pieces over coherent narratives, and self-indulgence over self-discipline. And the fact that they both continue to make profitable movies is a result of the same dynamic in the industry, the way feature films have increasingly come to prioritize the visual, the visceral, and the excessive because those are the only things they can still do better than television.
Have you seen it yet or still just passing judgement on second hand knowledge?
Considering he seems to have just implied DCEU Superman isn't shown as heroic I'm, no he hasn't.
Indeed, because what he did was pretty damn heroic at the end as to be honest, there's nothing heroic about going into a situation where you know you'll be fine at the end of it.
And the kind of big one before hand.
The opening of the movie went out of its way to show that Superman has dedicated himself to acts of saving people and helping humanity during the intervening years since Man of Steel.
I have seen it.
You say "went out of its way," but I've heard other people say it just paid cursory lip service to the idea and then focused on other things.
I assume you have my ignored, but have you actually seen it or not? By your comment there I'm assuming you haven't.
I used that phrasing because Snyder seemed to feel the need to include these scenes to establish that Superman has been acting as a hero, even though they are not incorporated directly into the active narrative. In fact, one of the biggest faults of the movie IMO is this show don't tell approach.
There was a montage that showed a lot of the scenes that were in the trailers. It showed Superman rescuing families, saving people from disasters, and such. Also it is play IIRC over the speech of the senator. There are also plenty of statements about the various good deeds that Superman has done over the years. Nobody, including Batman, believes that Superman's actions (up to the mistake he makes at the very beginning of the film) are anything but well intended. Rather they express the genuine fear of a being with his power.
Well, "to go out of one's way" generally means to make a special effort above and beyond expectations, to try especially hard to achieve something for another person at the cost of one's own inconvenience -- same idea as "to go the extra mile" or "to bend over backwards." The impression I get from some reviews (though with the proviso that I still haven't seen the film myself) is that this is more along the lines of including some token rescues as a sop to audience complaints about MoS. So it's pretty much the opposite of going out of his way, except in the most literal sense of digressing from his intended course.
It's pretty well established in dialogue and in a couple of scenes that Superman has been acting as Superman over the past couple of years. The fault of the film in my opinion is that it suffers from some odd editing and pacing although this is clearly Snyder's style.
Ok, now I'm even more excited for Aquaman:
I was thinking that Entourage's Aquaman would make this weird, but I forgot about that!
Similar threads
- Locked
