Warner bros announce superhero films through 2020

[Kai "the spy"]

And everyone would have less character then a cardboard box, and Superman would have 5 lines of dialog (a fact the people making the movie would then brag about). So, basically a Snyder movie but with no character or story (bad or not) to break up the overlong action scenes that become boring after about 10 minutes.

While @Mr. Adventure was obviously kidding, you are apparently serious, completely ignoring the fact that Fury Road was not George Miller's only film. In fact, all the Mad Max movies are quite unique, even among themselves, where character depth and plot are concerned. Not to mention Miller even made farm animals talk and penguins dance.

He also was in charge of the aborted "Justice League: Mortal" movie. There's a screenplay for it to be found online, I highly recommend it, especially if you didn't like Snyder's darker approach.

 

[Gaith]

Given that we've had seven theatrical Superman movies (okay, Christopher, seven color, live-action theatrical Superman movies, don't hurt me), and not a single one of them has been good overall, I have a radical idea: let's maybe not have any more Superman movies for a while.

 

[kirk55555]

While @Mr. Adventure was obviously kidding, you are apparently serious, completely ignoring the fact that Fury Road was not George Miller's only film. In fact, all the Mad Max movies are quite unique, even among themselves, where character depth and plot are concerned. Not to mention Miller even made farm animals talk and penguins dance.

He also was in charge of the aborted "Justice League: Mortal" movie. There's a screenplay for it to be found online, I highly recommend it, especially if you didn't like Snyder's darker approach.

Its not like I take the suggestion of George Miller all that seriously. I mean, yeah, I don't want the guy behind Fury Road, Babe and Happy Feet working on a superhero movie. I think I'd actually take Snyder over Miller (and I hate what Snyder has done to DC movies). I've seen Road Warrior and Fury Road, and they were about equal in characterization (being neither had any). At least Road Warrior broke up the action with some different moments and didn't try to pretend it was anything other then a action movie made by people who either weren't able or couldn't be bothered to write anything but two dimensional characters. Its fine if people like them, but in my opinion the average Michael Bay movie has better characters (in that they are at least characters, even if they're terrible characters), and superhero movies live or die by their characters.

In the end, its hard to think of a director I'd want to see on a DC movie less then George Miller, but I no longer get surprised by the stupid decisions WB makes and its hard to get really angry when they make stupid decisions so many times. I really, really hope Miller stays far away from DC, but if he makes a DC movie I'll watch it. I'll probably be bored to tears, if not falling asleep, but I'd watch it. I watch all the DC/Marvel movies, even the ones with terrible directors and/or writers.

As for JL: Mortal, if Miller was attached I'm sure it sucked. The guy is allergic to actual writing in movies, unless the writing is for talking animals. I'm pretty sure the story in fury road was 2 pages long, and while that would probably make a JL: Mortal script a very quick read, I can read a cereal box in the same time and probably get better characterization and more enjoyment out of it.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Its not like I take the suggestion of George Miller all that seriously. I mean, yeah, I don't want the guy behind Fury Road, Babe and Happy Feet working on a superhero movie. I think I'd actually take Snyder over Miller (and I hate what Snyder has done to DC movies). I've seen Road Warrior and Fury Road, and they were about equal in characterization (being neither had any). At least Road Warrior broke up the action with some different moments and didn't try to pretend it was anything other then a action movie made by people who either weren't able or couldn't be bothered to write anything but two dimensional characters. Its fine if people like them, but in my opinion the average Michael Bay movie has better characters (in that they are at least characters, even if they're terrible characters), and superhero movies live or die by their characters.

In the end, its hard to think of a director I'd want to see on a DC movie less then George Miller, but I no longer get surprised by the stupid decisions WB makes and its hard to get really angry when they make stupid decisions so many times. I really, really hope Miller stays far away from DC, but if he makes a DC movie I'll watch it. I'll probably be bored to tears, if not falling asleep, but I'd watch it. I watch all the DC/Marvel movies, even the ones with terrible directors and/or writers.

As for JL: Mortal, if Miller was attached I'm sure it sucked. The guy is allergic to actual writing in movies, unless the writing is for talking animals. I'm pretty sure the story in fury road was 2 pages long, and while that would probably make a JL: Mortal script a very quick read, I can read a cereal box in the same time and probably get better characterization and more enjoyment out of it.

My first impulse was to write a long counter-argument, in-depth analysis of how George Miller is a director that displays a particular range, and how ignorant it is to judge the screenplay for JL: Mortal solely on one's opinion of the director without even being willing to glance at it, but then I remembered who I am talking to.

For anybody else, if you have doubt about Miller as a capable director of mature material with proper characterization, watch his remake of "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet" from "Twilight Zone: The Movie".

 

[kirk55555]

My first impulse was to write a long counter-argument, in-depth analysis of how George Miller is a director that displays a particular range, and how ignorant it is to judge the screenplay for JL: Mortal solely on one's opinion of the director without even being willing to glance at it, but then I remembered who I am talking to.

For anybody else, if you have doubt about Miller as a capable director of mature material with proper characterization, watch his remake of "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet" from "Twilight Zone: The Movie".

Oh yes, remaking a Twilight Zone episode as one part (out of four) of an anthology movie certainly proves someone is qualified to make a good superhero movie. A segment of an anthology movie that was probably shaped more by the producers and writers. It was a, what, 20 minute short that had a decent amount of history to it and was a pretty famous episode of the show. It would be hard to screw up. So, I guess if Miller directs a 20 minute DC movie that's a remake of an episode of, say, Justice League Unlimited and has the writer of that episode writing the adaptation and high quality producers then he might make a decent DC movie. I mean, I legitimately think he could pull it off in that situation, but it seems unlikely he'll get the chance.

 

[Christopher]

Given that we've had seven theatrical Superman movies... and not a single one of them has been good overall, I have a radical idea: let's maybe not have any more Superman movies for a while.

I think several of them were on the right track. Superman: The Movie was uneven, torn between camp and naturalism, and very weird in some ways, but it had a lot going for it and captured the character of Superman superbly. Superman II would've been much better if it had been completed by Donner as planned. Superman III is actually the most tonally consistent and confident of the Reeve movies, unapologetically embracing the wackiness of Silver Age comics, and its Clark-Lana romance is better than any of the Superman-Lois stuff in the first two films -- plus Ross Webster is a much better Lex Luthor than Hackman's Luthor managed to be. Even Supergirl (1984) works in the same way S3 does -- in that it's a pretty good Silver Age pastiche and you can enjoy it if you get into the same mindset you'd use for reading Silver Age comics or watching Batman '66. (Well, as long as you can get past the awfulness of the male romantic lead and the wrongness of his ill-conceived "romance" with Supergirl.) The only truly irredeemable one in that sequence was The Quest for Peace.

Even Superman Returns was a decent try, failing mainly because it tried too hard to be a Donner fan film rather than its own entity. Although I think it and the Snyder films suffer from a similar attitude that Superman movies need to be "fixed" by making them more somber and serious, rather than wholeheartedly embracing the upbeat spirit of the character. (Although somehow the Russo Brothers' Captain America movies have managed to go somber and serious while still being true to Cap's basic optimism. So why is it harder with Superman?)

 

[M.A.C.O.]

I think several of them were on the right track. Superman: The Movie was uneven, torn between camp and naturalism, and very weird in some ways, but it had a lot going for it and captured the character of Superman superbly. Superman II would've been much better if it had been completed by Donner as planned. Superman III is actually the most tonally consistent and confident of the Reeve movies, unapologetically embracing the wackiness of Silver Age comics, and its Clark-Lana romance is better than any of the Superman-Lois stuff in the first two films -- plus Ross Webster is a much better Lex Luthor than Hackman's Luthor managed to be. Even Supergirl (1984) works in the same way S3 does -- in that it's a pretty good Silver Age pastiche and you can enjoy it if you get into the same mindset you'd use for reading Silver Age comics or watching Batman '66. (Well, as long as you can get past the awfulness of the male romantic lead and the wrongness of his ill-conceived "romance" with Supergirl.) The only truly irredeemable one in that sequence was The Quest for Peace.

Even Superman Returns was a decent try, failing mainly because it tried too hard to be a Donner fan film rather than its own entity. Although I think it and the Snyder films suffer from a similar attitude that Superman movies need to be "fixed" by making them more somber and serious, rather than wholeheartedly embracing the upbeat spirit of the character. (Although somehow the Russo Brothers' Captain America movies have managed to go somber and serious while still being true to Cap's basic optimism. So why is it harder with Superman?)

@bold

It's harder because there is no direction people will accept for what they want to see Superman do. This applies to the movies and the comics.

MOS gave us a go get'em action Superman, who pauses and asks questions because he has doubts, and people didn't like it.

BvS continued the trend, and despite all that Superman still acted as a servant to humanity. However, the biggest takeaway from BvS was how cool murder spree, in-your-face Batman was. While Superman was the one everyone said needed to be "fixed". The word Dave Gibbon (artist for Watchmen) used was "opaque" to describe Cavil's Superman. While again, praising Affleck's Batman.

Superman Returns did everything fans of the Donner film said they wanted. He dotes, swoons and fawns over Lois, just like he did in Superman II, but no one will champion Superman Returns for what it is or tried to do.

The first Superman movie was more of a whimsical fairy tale, with romance and drama. Supes is a stand up guy who fights crime, but in a world that lacks any challenges to him.

Superman II falls down a lot on rewatches. With how selfish Superman is, his dereliction of duty to stop Zod and his followers while he was wining and dining Lois, and giving up his powers because of undefined reasons that don't allow him to be with Lois as Superman.


Seriously, think about it. What do you want to see the character do? Chase down purse snatchers? Another alien invasion movie against Brainiac? Spend an inordinate amount of time focusing on his romance with Lois? Wrestle with what he means to the world, while simultaneously never doing anything to make the world a better place? The last one being the trend of Superman comics for the last 30 years.

It's a tough situation. Not to mention the big no go zones for characters. Chiefly politics and religion. DC mandates that Superman be apolitical. So you'll never see the character talk about politics in costume, intervene in the internal politics (including wars) of another country (very much like the Prime Directive), or address the inequalities of the systems in place. Religion as I said is also off limits. So there will be no instances of Superman flying to Middle East and certain African countries and sorting out the religious and sectarian violence that plagues both regions.


It's the same over at Marvel. Recently Marvel has been distancing HYDRA from being a Nazi organization, to being a thousands year old cult. The calculus being Marvel doesn't want to offend German government by having Captain America fight real Nazis. You see this play out on Agents of SHIELD, with characters denying that HYDRA is a Nazi organization. Even though Jack Kirby created the Red Skull to reflect Nazism. The same way Darkseid reflects Nazism and Adolf Hitler.

Also you have openly Catholic characters Matt Murdock, Steve Rogers and Helena Bertinelli (Huntress), who all said and did nothing during the Catholic Church scandal with sexually abused kids and the number of priests who didn't face prosecution for their crimes.

Religion and Politics as you would expect are sidestepped.

Back to Superman. If you watch MOS and BvS you see that Superman is actively serving humanity and submits to authority (the military in MOS and Senator Finch in BvS) when he thinks it will avoid violence and assuage fears and uncertainty about him. What's become lost in the discourse I feel, is people deliberately ignoring what Superman actually accomplishes in the Snyder movies, because he doesn't act like "their Superman". Whatever that means.

 

[Christopher]

MOS gave us a go get'em action Superman, who pauses and asks questions because he has doubts, and people didn't like it.

That's completely mischaracterizing what people didn't like about Snyder's approach, although I have no interest in rehashing that argument yet again.

Superman Returns did everything fans of the Donner film said they wanted.

Which is the problem. It was simply an extended homage to someone else's creation rather than something with its own vision. And it goes to show that giving the fans what they think they want doesn't generally turn out well, certainly not if it's the primary thing driving the work.

You see this play out on Agents of SHIELD, with characters denying that HYDRA is a Nazi organization.

No, with Ward denying that Hydra is a Nazi organization, and Skye/Daisy refusing to accept his BS and insisting that, hell yes, it is a Nazi organization. Bad guys' rationalizations for their evil actions are not generally meant to be taken by the audience as objective truths.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

That's completely mischaracterizing what people didn't like about Snyder's approach, although I have no interest in rehashing that argument yet again.

It wasn't my intention to address everything about MOS. Only the most notable aspects about it. That it was more punchy and introspective. Personally I don't feel the mass destruction at the end was the make or break it point for many about the movie. The same way I don't feel the mass destruction at the end of STID was make it or break for people either.

But like you said, water under the bridge. Moving on.

Which is the problem. It was simply an extended homage to someone else's creation rather than something with its own vision. And it goes to show that giving the fans what they think they want doesn't generally turn out well, certainly not if it's the primary thing driving the work.

Agreed.

No, with Ward denying that Hydra is a Nazi organization, and Skye/Daisy refusing to accept his BS and insisting that, hell yes, it is a Nazi organization. Bad guys' rationalizations for their evil actions are not generally meant to be taken by the audience as objective truths.

I did mention Marvel changing HYDRA in the comics too. Like I said, HYDRA is now a thousands year old cult that predates the Nazi Party, and only ever aligned with Hitler in an effort to further their ambitions. Most people here likely aren't aware of what Marvel does on the comics, but probably follow Agents of SHIELD.

All that aside, the question of what you want to see Superman do, lingers. Reading interviews from writers who worked on the IP and stories about the Superman editor's office at DC, we can put most of the problems at their feet.

 

[Christopher]

All that aside, the question of what you want to see Superman do, lingers.

Because I don't feel it's a valid question. It's too reductionistic. If it were possible to reduce what makes a movie work to a single answer to a single question, then it would be easy to make successful movies.

The more important question is what we want to see the filmmakers do. That's what determines whether a film works. Give the same premise or plot to two different directors and you'll probably get two completely different movies, one of which might well be enormously better than the other. After all, both of Snyder's Superman movies have been built around subjects that other storytellers have tackled successfully -- Superman's origin story and Superman in conflict with Batman. So it wasn't the plots or the subject matter that made those movies flawed. The problem was in the choice of director.

 

[eyeresist]

Superman II would've been much better if it had been completed by Donner as planned.

Yes, last time I watched it I found it so awful that I don't think I'll ever watch it again. The best bits were all carried over from the first film, including the villains.

*Tarantino's 9th movie*

*Samuel L Jackson as Lex Luthor*

*Filmed in 70mm film*

Superman talks for 40 minutes about life and some nonsense.

But who plays Superman? Is it Nicholas Cage? Is it Nicholas Cage???? No it's BEES!!!! AAAARGH!!!1

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Because I don't feel it's a valid question. It's too reductionistic. If it were possible to reduce what makes a movie work to a single answer to a single question, then it would be easy to make successful movies.

The more important question is what we want to see the filmmakers do. That's what determines whether a film works. Give the same premise or plot to two different directors and you'll probably get two completely different movies, one of which might well be enormously better than the other. After all, both of Snyder's Superman movies have been built around subjects that other storytellers have tackled successfully -- Superman's origin story and Superman in conflict with Batman. So it wasn't the plots or the subject matter that made those movies flawed. The problem was in the choice of director.

Remember, you posed the question of why it's harder to maintain Superman's optimism, while doing a somber and serious story. Like Marvel has done for Captain America. I posed the question of what you (or anybody else) want to see the character do, because a frequent criticism of Snyder's Superman is that he's doing it (being Superman) wrong. What does doing it right look like? I went into detail to explain that DC has done a terrible job actually defining what Superman's impact on the world is and how he makes it a better place through his actions. His actions that don't include stopping the villain of the week, alien invasions and mad scientist schemes.

Instead of specific accomplishments or goals, the topic is left vague and undefined. Resulting in a fill in the blank answer from person to person.

Superman is meant to "inspire" humanity. How exactly?

Superman is meant to "save" humanity from itself. How and what exactly is he saving humanity from?

Superman is meant to make humanity better and make Earth the "World of Tomorrow". When, how and what exactly does he do accomplish said goals?

These questions and expectations remain unanswered by DC.

Just look at the stories published by DC on Superman's solo titles and you'll find that the lion share involve some manner of scifi action adventure, where Superman uses his fists to solve his problems. There is a lot of talk about Superman making a difference, but never a story about him doing just that. The problem, which is something John Byrne, George Perez and Geoff Johns have all talked about is that there is a difference between the Superman DC advertises (save humanity, inspire, etc) and the Superman they actually write.

Meanwhile the future of the DCU has been mapped out by other offices at DC. The not too distant future where the formerly Teen, now adult Titans and Young Justice members fight crime and villains. Same for the future generations of the Justice League. Also there is Batman Beyond (which has been integrated into the DC continuity),where Gotham is a futuristic dystopia, and Superman is still knocking about playing hero.

All of which reflect a lack of a defined impact and accomplishments of those who make decisions for Superman. The world of the DCU wasn't made better, because no one wanted to commit to defining what exactly Superman does to make a difference.

When I asked what you want to see the character do, I just want a direction or a list of goals you'd like to see him accomplish. That's what Captain America, Batman and other IPs have over Superman, a direction.

 

[Gaith]

When I asked what you want to see the character do, I just want a direction or a list of goals you'd like to see him accomplish. That's what Captain America, Batman and other IPs have over Superman, a direction.

Well said. (Indeed, your whole two posts on this have been brilliant.) I'd love to see a Superman movie in which Supes is called into the Oval Office and asked to work with the military on such projects as liberating North Korea and Syria, and hauling Kim and Assad before the International Criminal Court. And I'd love to see Supes reply, "maybe, but in the meantime, how about quadrupling our international humanitarian aid expenditures, rather than giving your billionaire donors tax cuts?" And even if one doesn't give him the same super-intelligence powers some of the comics do, he could certainly make civilian nuclear energy a lot safer and more palatable by disposing of nuclear waste in space. A writer with political interests such as Aaron Sorkin could go wild with this kind of material... which leads us to the big problem at hand, which is the WB doesn't have the balls to take this kind of godlike character seriously, and tell a bold story around him, one which might - gasp! - actually piss a few people off. No, no, can't have that; let's just give him alien soldiers and cave trolls to punch.

If the WB were smart, they'd keep Superman dead, and make their Justice League movies without him. For a few movies, at the very least. Instead, they went all in with Snyder before BvS even opened, and are now sweating bullets over it. Their own damn fault, I say.

(Although somehow the Russo Brothers' Captain America movies have managed to go somber and serious while still being true to Cap's basic optimism. So why is it harder with Superman?)

Simple: Cap's not a god.

(He's just a kid from Brooklyn. )

 

[eyeresist]

If the WB were smart, they'd keep Superman dead, and make their Justice League movies without him.

I agree with this. Maybe they could do a TSFS and have Supes return without his memories? Or without his powers?

 

[Vandervecken]

So, I guess if Miller directs a 20 minute DC movie that's a remake of an episode of, say, Justice League Unlimited

I would love to see Twilight (from Justice League, not Unlimited) made into a full-length, live-action movie. It's got Brainiac, Darkseid, almost all the action off earth, a cool Batman/Superman staredown at the end, how can you not love?

 

[dahj]

James Wan talks a bit about Aquaman:

“I’m not a director for hire. I’ve really only done one director for hire job, and that was Fast and Furious 7. If I don’t have a hand in creating it, then I’m not interested. I’ve been very fortunate, as a filmmaker, that a lot of things that I have created have gone on to be successful, and I take a lot of pride in that. They are giving me a lot of leeway to create and craft my story, and it’s been a blast working with Geoff Johns to craft the story and the world, and seeing how it all ties back into what Zack [Snyder] is doing, as well.”

 

[Christopher]

Remember, you posed the question of why it's harder to maintain Superman's optimism, while doing a somber and serious story. Like Marvel has done for Captain America. I posed the question of what you (or anybody else) want to see the character do, because a frequent criticism of Snyder's Superman is that he's doing it (being Superman) wrong. What does doing it right look like?

And that's exactly what's too reductive. The question is not about what the character is "doing." Again, any given storyline for a character can be handled very differently by different filmmakers. You're trying to reduce the question to a single variable, but there are many different ones that go into making a film work or fail. The character's actions are the least of it. If the filmmaker doesn't understand why the character would perform those actions, if the filmmaker doesn't respect the character's worldview and tries to show it as fundamentally futile or invalid, then that filmmaker's depiction of those actions will be completely different than if they were depicted by a filmmaker that understands and respects the character and his ideals.

As for what doing a Superman-style story right looks like, go turn on your TV and watch Supergirl. That's just about the best Super-universe screen adaptation I've ever seen.

When I asked what you want to see the character do, I just want a direction or a list of goals you'd like to see him accomplish. That's what Captain America, Batman and other IPs have over Superman, a direction.

"...and who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, fights a neverending battle for truth and justice." Seems pretty clear-cut to me. (The "American way" thing was only added during WWII, and revived for TV in the Red-scare '50s.) Superman is the archetype of superheroes. His goals are the most basic and universal goals you can get in a heroic narrative. It's not complicated to define.

The problem is when the people put in charge of making a Superman story are too cynical or jaded to have faith in such straightforward Boy-Scout heroism and feel they have to deconstruct it or apologize for it. This is why Supergirl works -- because it believes in its hero's basic optimism and demonstrates why it's valid and valuable.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Having seen the most recent DC movie schedule: no matter who wins the election, we're in for a rough 4 years.

 

[JD]

George Miller was floated about last year. He'd be great for the project.

I'd also throw my hat in for Guillermo Del Toro, David Yates, Martin Campbell and Guy Ritchie.

I'd love to Steven Spielberg do a superhero movie, but at this point I think he's made comments about not liking superhero movies, so I guess it's doubtful.
JJ Abrams actually did work on Superman movie, Flyby for a while, but it sounded like they were taking some strange liberties with the character. I would love to see him do a more traditional Superman movie though. I think at this point it's pretty inevitable that he'll do some kind of superhero movie at some point.

He's already set his sights to directing Booster Gold

http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/ne...ti-confirms-involvement-in-booster-gold-movie

Still, even though he has professed his love for that character in the past, if given the opportunity I'm sure he would consider a Superman film.

After some of the backlash from MoS, and BvS I wouldn't be surprised to see WB aim for a "safe pair of hands" or someone who will "play the game". The real trick will be how well the combination of the writer/director work. Goyer and Snyder were very collaborative in both MoS and BvS and the big decisions they made together are generally seen to be the areas where fans clamour that the pair misinterpreted the characters (Clarkes pessimism, death of Zod, destructo-porn, Batman the vicious vigilante with a gun, Lex the lunatic).

I guess it also depends on which route DC/WB want to go down. Continue down the daker, grimmer, more adult approach, or start being a bit more playful and and fun. Either route is worthwhile, they just need to commit to it and stop toeing the line.

For a darker approach I'd love someone like Denis Villeneuve, who with Prisoners, Enemy and Scicario has shown a real flair for taut drama, ensemble casts and moral quandries. I'd love to see him try a full on action film. Or, perhaps even Chrispher McQuarrie, who as a writer/director has shown some real action chutspa with Rogue Nation and Jack Reacher.

For a lighter approach I'd love Brad Bird, who with the fourth Mission Impossible showed a flair for action, but with Iron Giant, The Incredibles and yes, even Tomorrowland. has a wistfulness and respect for classically told adventure films, which I think would be a great fit for.

Sadly, both of them have their schedules full to 2020 with Blade Runner sequels, Incredible Sequels and other properties.

The crazy answer is Luc Besson - loving to see a madcap, ultra colourful, playful Superman on our screens. But he most certainly would not fit the mould that WB have set for their current template of flicks.

But the real answer is George Miller because after Fury Road I desperately want to see the Justice League he had in his mind in the early 00's. And frankly I just want to see more of Miller's approach to in-camera action supplemented by CGI, making the world. the stunts, the crazy feel more believable.

Hugo - Glad they are doing another Superman film as he was severely shortchanged in BvS and needed a proper followup to the flawed MoS. Plus I like Cavill a lot in the role. He needs a better chance to shine.

Of the people you mention McQuarrie, Bird, and Miller would be my picks.

 

[Vandervecken]

IMO, an Apokolips story is long overdue in movies for supes, but better not to include the word in the title if it happens, because of the X Men.