I really think WB/DC need to stop and have a proper think about their movie universe. The three so far definitely have their fans, but fell somewhat short of the box office gold they were hoping for - I for one blame Zak 'we'll have no coherent plot here!' Snyder myself. Dude hasn't made a decent movie since Dawn of the Dead!
I really think WB/DC need to stop and have a proper think about their movie universe. The three so far definitely have their fans, but fell somewhat short of the box office gold they were hoping for - I for one blame Zak 'we'll have no coherent plot here!' Snyder myself. Dude hasn't made a decent movie since Dawn of the Dead!
IIRC but Dark Knight is the highest grossing comic book movie of all time.
Suicide Squad did well.
Allowing of course for some currency drift, Guardians comes out on top, and generally is a film much better thought of - certainly I know which I consider to the clearly superior film.
The of course compare to Marvel's big hitters, and it's a no-contest.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: And Man of Steel, which was awful.
***Loved it. It also made gobs of money.
Suicide Squad did, purely in terms of Superheromovies, ok.
***Quite well actually.
Alleged budget? $175,000,00. Box office take? $745,600,000.
***Thats a hit, pardon the pun.
Compare to its Marvel stable mate equivalent, Guardians of the Galaxy.
Alleged budget? £170,000,000. Box office take? $773,000,000
***You just typed that GOTG cost twice as much but made the same, give the currency difference. What?
Missed a zero off Suicide Squad's budget! My bad. Should be $175,000,000 - so $5,000,000 more than Guardians of the Galaxy.
Rest should make sense with that correction
BvS did relatively poor business - remember, purely in the context of Superhero Movies. £872,000,000, off the back of a reported $250,000,000 budget. The first Avenger's took $1,500,000,000 off a $220,000,000 budget. Deadpool? $760,300,000 from a truly piffling £52,000,000 budget. Man of Steel, an actual proper 'tent pole' DC movie? A relatively small $668,000,000, with a budget of £225,000,000....
So whilst nobody could argue DC have actually had any box office flops (they've all proved profitable, even once advertising is factored in, which I understand isn't typically quoted in budget?) they're have a string of disappointments - and they've been all been mauled by critics.
How Suicide Squad, a horrific narrative mess that cast a tosser as Joker and got a tosser playing some kind of god awful wannabe gangster you kind of suspect still lives with his Mam, and somehow contrived to miss the point of Harley Quinn made as much money as it did truly baffles me.
Frazzled wrote: IIRC but Dark Knight is the highest grossing comic book movie of all time.
In what timeline?
Marvel's The Avengers - $1,518,800 Avengers: Age of Ultron - $1,405,400 Iron Man 3 - $1,214,800 Captain America: Civil War - $1,153,300 The Dark Knight Rises - $1,084,900 The Dark Knight - $1,004,600
It's the 6th highest comic book movie of all time, and 28th of all time.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Found it to be an absolute mess of a movie. Characters were poor, acting was average, soundtrack was misplaced.
Marvel have trouble with convincing villains. DC seem to have doubled down on that.
I bet you like Cap America Winter Soldier and Civil War didn't you?
Yup Both were quite different from Marvel's previous output, being more in the mould of a political thriller.
Mmm...yea. Get thee to thine TV and watch Day of the Jackal, Seven Days in May, or even Doctor Strangelove young Padiwon. EDIT: Thats not meant as a hit. If you like political thrillers there are titans in the field well worth watching. Some of them are almost terrifying. For a more humorous one Wag the Dog is a Great comedy. I'll mention Black Sunday here as well just because.
Frazzled wrote: IIRC but Dark Knight is the highest grossing comic book movie of all time.
In what timeline?
Marvel's The Avengers - $1,518,800 Avengers: Age of Ultron - $1,405,400 Iron Man 3 - $1,214,800 Captain America: Civil War - $1,153,300 The Dark Knight Rises - $1,084,900 The Dark Knight - $1,004,600
It's the 6th highest comic book movie of all time, and 28th of all time.
Oh there's definitely far better political thrillers out there - but they were the first sure sign Marvel weren't afraid of mixing up their tones - and they certainly seem to pull it off.
DC? Grittyshitty, Grittyshitty, Grittyshitty. Ridiculously dark palette, fight scenes where it's near impossible to see what's going on, characters acting out of character (Superman's double genocide, Batman just taking stuff at face value with no actual investigation, Joker being a very, very bad joke and not in the way it would work)
What WB is doing now is conducting their business like Marvel/Disney. Those Marvel films are incredibly studio-driven, and the directors are just there to execute the studio's vision instead of being the overall creative mastermind. Some films break the mold more than others, but overall it's still about the studio having a clear vision of what they want and what they need each film to set up.
WB started the DCEU as a director-driven vehicle, but the critical reception in 2016 has them shifting gears and emulating the Marvel approach. Personally I think at least half of the Marvel films are utterly forgettable. But what they are is crowdpleasing, which BvS in particular failed to pull off. So I expect to see more crowdpleasing films from WB/DC going forward. And I suspect that the next Flash script will probably be a little more conventional, crowdpleasing, and less quirky than the Rick F. version would have been. (Although I would have liked to have seen it.)
Regarding particular DC films, Man of Steel is a good movie and I'll go to my grave defending it. Too many people got weird about some imaginary destruction and the fact that it wasn't yet another rehash of the ancient Chris Reeve films. It's an absolute joke that the awful Superman Returns movie got better reviews. There isn't a single aspect of that film that's better. (And don't give me John Williams...that score is almost 40 years old now.)
BvS definitely had its issues. The ultimate edition cleans up a LOT of story issues, though. Luthor's plan is much clearer and many more scenes suddenly make sense. But then it's 3 hours long, and takes too long to get to the action. IMO, the real failing with it was that the creators were too sensitive to the criticisms of MoS and spent too much time on the personal drama instead of listening to their guts and giving us a good movie-long Bats vs. Supes slugfest. Regardless of what the critics thought, it seemed like most people liked the action once it finally arrived.
I don't get the criticism that the Batman/Superman fight was too short. I appreciate that it's the name of the film and that a lot of people would watch just wanting to see that, but to say that the film only delivers on its title for 8 minutes is missing the point completely, that it's about way more than just two guys punching. It's conflict that runs through the whole film that the title refers to; ideals versus pragmatism, the powerful versus the powerless, the familiar versus the alien. It was Batman versus Superman as symbols, not as two blokes in capes. Funny how you don't see anyone complaining that Civil War was disappointing because Cap and Iron Man only fight for about 10 minutes of screen time.
And as for the fight itself, I think it was brilliant. So it's only about 8 minutes... find me a good movie fight scene with only two people involved that lasts significantly longer than that. There's nothing in Marvel's output, there's nothing in Star Wars, there's nothing in any of the X-men films. Even leaving aside that narratively, it had to be a short fight for it not to be totally one-sided, I don't think it would gain anything by being any longer. I can see why people would be disappointed if that was what they were expecting, but to see a 3-hour movie just for one scene and ignoring everything else excellent about it is baffling to me.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Oh there's definitely far better political thrillers out there - but they were the first sure sign Marvel weren't afraid of mixing up their tones - and they certainly seem to pull it off.
DC? Grittyshitty, Grittyshitty, Grittyshitty. Ridiculously dark palette, fight scenes where it's near impossible to see what's going on, characters acting out of character (Superman's double genocide, Batman just taking stuff at face value with no actual investigation, Joker being a very, very bad joke and not in the way it would work)
This is the only Batman film in recent memory where he's done any detective work at all, aside from the sci-fi reconstruction of a fingerprint on a bullet in The Dark Knight, so to say he's not doing any investigation when that's all he does in the first hour of the film is a little unfair.
@Paradigm: True about the investigation. But Gorgon is totally wrong about MoS. It's acceptable (after multiple viewings), but it feels more like hermit Clark running from everything. It doesn't "feel" like Superman.
Because it's not a Superman film. There's a reason Superman isn't in the title and the name is only used ironically. It's not a story about Superman, it's a story about Clark becoming Superman, a journey that's continued in BvS. When he comes back in JL, that will be when we get the version of Superman that is the symbol of hope and justice, prepared to sacrifice everything ect. It took the events of BvS to establish him as that in this universe, which is much more believable than people instantly getting behind an ultra-powerful alien without taking some convincing.
Frazzled wrote: You're the first person I've met who doesn't like the Joker.
Seriously? Most of the people I talk to don't like Leto Joker at all.
I love the Joker, in general. I thought Ledger was excellent in the Dark Knight.
I fething Hate the Leto Joker. They could have left him completely out and the movie would not have missed it.
Whilst I can't stand Leto, let alone his Joker, I don't feel Heath Ledger's character was The Joker.
Don't get me wrong - it was an excellent performance, and a damned good villain, but for me wasn't Joker. He had the creepy psychopath down, but none of the charm or craziness. I never got the impression he was playing a joke on anyone, no matter how obtuse.
But Leto remains the single worst Joker ever. None of Nicholson's charm. None of Romero's camp, none of Ledger's chill. He was like some tosser cosplaying Joker, despite never having researched the character, in the hope it'll get him some Halloween Nerd Girls...
And don't get me started on imbeciles craving a Joker/Harley Quinn relationship. It's not a good thing. That's a major part of Harley's character development over the years! Hell, it's even strongly hinted at, if not outright made clear that Joker beat the crap out of her to cause a miscarriage. Seriously. It's not a doomed romance, it's straight up abusive relationship writ large. That's how badly they fethed it up in Suicide Squad.
And Joker's motivation makes no sense.
Spoiler:
When Batman forces them into the river, Joker does one, leaving Harley to drown. Does nothing whilst she's in prison. Then suddenly goes to extremes to get her back. Craptacular!
timetowaste85 wrote: @Paradigm: True about the investigation. But Gorgon is totally wrong about MoS. It's acceptable (after multiple viewings), but it feels more like hermit Clark running from everything. It doesn't "feel" like Superman.
Well, that's your *opinion* and I don't share it one bit.
One lesson that came out of the post-MoS hubbub is that although the character is iconic, that also means people have different, personal, firmly engrained ideas about the character. But Superman has been different things at different times over the years.
The MoS Superman is a Clark-centric take on the character, which is pretty much how it's been in the comics since the Crisis. Personally, I don't mind that the movie showed him struggling to figure it out. That fits the more human, post-Crisis version of the character and the grounded approach the movie was striving for. Clearly however, there were people that don't want their Superman to struggle or fail. They wanted a more Silver/Bronze Age "Supergod" version like in the Reeve films.
Honestly, I don't think the creators of MoS were ever going to "win" without doing something incredibly middle-of-the-road and bland with the character. Marvel didn't have this same problem because it had to use its B- and C-list properties. Not all of those characterizations came in "right" compared to the comics -- again if that's even a thing -- but few complained because there wasn't as many set ideas regarding those characters.
But I don't think we're treading any new ground here with the MoS talk. I'm interested to see where the newer DCEU films go, although I'm afraid that they're going to emulate Marvel's worst qualities -- formulaic, bland, and so inoffensive as to be forgettable.
To be fair, Ledger's Joker, fantastic as it was, had very little in common with any comic book iteration. The voicework and mannerisms were fine, you can read Joker lines in that style and it works, but his motivations and methods were vastly different. In that regard, Leto's is actually closer to the mark. He's a crime boss. He wants money, he wants power, and he appreciates the value of such things, whereas Ledger's demonstrates he hold them in contempt to the point of nihilism; all he's trying to do is make a point, he's got no long term goal or endgame in sight. He doesn't even really have the fixation with Batman that most comic versions have.
Doesn't take anything away from the stunning performance, but he's The Joker in name only (the same could be said for Hardy's Bane as well, though perhaps to a lesser extent).
Obligatory "Mark Hamill is the one true Joker" comment.
Now that's done...
One thing to remember about Suicide Squad was that it was banned in China. - Having an income they did with a whole market missing is a big deal.
I think part of the problem DC has is that they keep on trying to do 'fresh' takes on characters without realising that the cinema audiences haven't even seen the normal takes on the characters, found in the comic books and animated programmes.
Heck, the best take we've had on Lex Luthor in live action is Smallville. SMALLVILLE!
Imagine if, in Superman Returns, instead of having "Kevin Spacey doing an impression of Gene Hackman" Lex Luthor, we had "Francis Underwood Kevin Spacey" instead.
But I don't think we're treading any new ground here with the MoS talk. I'm interested to see where the newer DCEU films go, although I'm afraid that they're going to emulate Marvel's worst qualities -- formulaic, bland, and so inoffensive as to be forgettable.
I don't think DC are in danger of copying The Marvel Formula. Marking themselves out as different is fundamental, even if in the short run it got BvS and MoS slammed for daring to have more ambition than the Marvel way of doing things. Behind the scenes, they might switch over to the more studio-focused method, but on-screen I think they'll continue down their route of making films to serve the characters and stories, rather than cut and pasting the same formula over and over again.
In the short term, it's biting them in the arse, but eventually people are going to tire of the standard Marvel film structure that, aside from TWS and Civil War, has remained largely unchanged since Iron Man. Which isn't to say it can't work exceptionally, Guardians and Ant-man for instance follow that narrative structure to the letter but are fun and charming enough that they're still damn enjoyable films, but ultimately people are going to cotton on, and while Marvel might change their style going into Phase 4, DC will be one step ahead.
I'm fully confident that this'll be the year DC's films start going head to head with Marvel, critically, commercially and in general audience reception. All the signs for WW and JL are good, and while there are people out there who will set out bash DC (and Snyder for some reason) without needing a reason to, I think the consensus will start to turn around... which will hopefully lead to the earlier being reconsidered as well, but if not then never mind, I'm still free to maintain that MoS and BvS are masterpieces better than even Marvel's (excellent) best efforts.
Imagine if, in Superman Returns, instead of having "Kevin Spacey doing an impression of Gene Hackman" Lex Luthor, we had "Francis Underwood Kevin Spacey" instead.
Nice!
However, even with the changes with Spacey's Luthor you've proposed, I think we can all agree that that particular film would still be dreadful.
Paradigm wrote: To be fair, Ledger's Joker, fantastic as it was, had very little in common with any comic book iteration.
And many of the comic iterations were very different from each other so it seems a bit silly to say "well it is ok when different people have a different angle on the same character as long as it is in a comic but this one version isn't allowed". If one didn't care for it that is fine but the bs excuse of "not the Joker" is just that: bs. That interpretation is just as valid as any.
Imagine if, in Superman Returns, instead of having "Kevin Spacey doing an impression of Gene Hackman" Lex Luthor, we had "Francis Underwood Kevin Spacey" instead.
Nice!
However, even with the changes with Spacey's Luthor you've proposed, I think we can all agree that that particular film would still be dreadful.
And yet Superman Returns is a 72(!) on Metacritic, HIGHER than Batman Begins (70). Actually, a 72 is higher than a lot of movies that most people would consider to be far superior. Perhaps the lesson there is that a 'return' -- i.e. oddly apeing a defunct movie series from decades ago -- plays better even to critics than a 'beginning' -- i.e. offering a new take on a character.
But really, I think the critics mostly view superhero stuff as silly, and so you risk incurring their wrath by even attempting something that isn't by-the-book or tongue-in-cheek. It's better to stay 'in the box' and not get their attention. Witness Avengers 2 and its score of 66, which is probably double what it should have received.
In other superhero critical weirdness news, Batman Forever scored a 51, just 4 points behind Man of Steel. I don't see how that makes sense to anyone other than the most rabid Zack Snyder hater. Batman Forever is almost an objectively terrible movie at nearly every level. Man of Steel may have its controversial aspects, but it isn't that.
Paradigm wrote: To be fair, Ledger's Joker, fantastic as it was, had very little in common with any comic book iteration.
And many of the comic iterations were very different from each other so it seems a bit silly to say "well it is ok when different people have a different angle on the same character as long as it is in a comic but this one version isn't allowed". If one didn't care for it that is fine but the bs excuse of "not the Joker" is just that: bs. That interpretation is just as valid as any.
I think it's important to view any Joker in the context of his respective Batman. The Nolan Batman was very much a post-9/11 version of the character -- witness the military-styled hardware, 'tactical' matte black everywhere, and (I think importantly) the almost animalistic rage in response to the violence done to him. And that Joker -- which for me was really summed up in that interrogation room scene -- represented those terrorists who seemed above our ability to combat through conventional means or even really understand.
The Nicholson Joker was the right counterpart to the Keaton Batman just as the Romero Joker was for the West Batman. They always go together.
Quite frankly, I think the issue with the Leto Joker is that we met him outside the context of a proper Affleck Batman film. They go together, and their dynamics are worthy of an entire film, not just some flashbacks.
Imagine if, in Superman Returns, instead of having "Kevin Spacey doing an impression of Gene Hackman" Lex Luthor, we had "Francis Underwood Kevin Spacey" instead.
Nice!
However, even with the changes with Spacey's Luthor you've proposed, I think we can all agree that that particular film would still be dreadful.
Fun side note - I haven't actually sat down and watched House of Cards, but my roommate had it on and I caught enough of it to remark "You know, Kevin Spacey would make a really good Lex Luthor. Why haven't they tried him?"
There was an awkward silence while we both remembered.
Just saying. Guns and explosives seemed exceedingly sufficient to deal with the problem they were facing when Deadshot was around, but what? The US Army can't make up for a lack of superhuman accuracy with sheer volume? Well of course it can't then the movie would be over too soon! The whole plot was like watching a really bad excuse to just put some bad guys in the role of heroes. The individual pieces were a lot better than I expected, but the whole puzzle was a mess. On top of that, I just didn't find the film all that charming.
The DCEU has been taking body hits since Man of Steel on multiple fronts. Even as the films have been quite profitable they haven't produced the mega franchise ballooning out into hyped film after hyped film, which the people funding these films obviously seem to want.
I'd like the quality of these movies to improve so I'm all for the people making them taking a step back and reassessing how they're doing things.
It all goes back to how DC can make good tv shows but not movies, and Marvel makes better movies than TV shows (though I really like Daredevil). Flash, Arrow, and Legends are great fun, and I hear Supergirl's better now, too.
It's true that it can't just be Snyder, but getting him out of the directors chair would be a huge step in the right direction. His movies are just god awful. 300 is the only thing he's ever done that I've liked, everything else has been total trash. I'm not expecting DC to turn the ship around in any meaningful way while they've still got him on board, and for such huge properties as Justice League to boot.
What is it exactly people dislike about Snyder's directing style? I really enjoy the way he puts his films together, and I think he's one of the handful of directors out there whose films you could recognise based on the directing alone.
His movies go all over the place, jumping from place to place, a pain in the neck to follow, and just overall feel "blah".
Watchmen: Crap
300: eh
MoS: required 4 viewings to be passable
BvS: NEEDS the extended cut to make sense. But then suffers from length.
Yes, I realize ALL of that counts as my opinion. But I also personally know only one person who actually liked the Watchmen movie. And he looked like he was trying to join the trenchcoat Mafia. And the critics wouldn't have panned MoS and BvS as badly as they did if they were good or great movies.
Being recognizable isn't always a good thing. Hell, Hitler is instantly recognizable, regardless of how much of a caricature is made of him; I dare anyone to find how that's "good". Instant recognition isn't always good.
And don't anyone actually be stupid and think I compared Synder to Hitler. Just don't.
Well now you know more than one person who liked the Watchman movie, though I don't have any Columbine shooter anecdotes or Hitler comparisons to make about Snyder though. Sorry.
See, that's the thing; I don't know you. You are a faceless Internet person to me, the same way that I am to you. I've met one person in the flesh who liked watchmen.
And would you prefer Trump instead of Hitler? Or Stalin? Or Charles Manson? I picked an easily recognizable person to make the point that "easily recognizable isn't always good". That's all.
There's also the "it's just so depressing" thing to watch, with Snyder. It's not Superman, it's Mopey-man. So, even though Suicide Squad isn't his film, it still has the same tones and shades.
In saying that, I don't have strong feeling against him but, for example, I don't dislike Watchmen, but I certainly don't find it enjoyable.
But, going back to my issue with the DC film stuff. I think it's still very much directors and their teams (which includes Snyder) very much wanting to try to reinvent things, put a fresh spin on things. A fresh Lex Luthor, a fresh Joker, that we don't actually ever get to see a normal version of them. I also think the comics have kind of fallen into this trap too, particularly with New 52.
I think that partly might be why I feel so close to the Arkham games, with the exception of The Red Hood (who is way better in the animated film 'Under the Red Hood' ), it's pretty much entirely what I'd call, for me at least, familiar versions of the characters and it just works so well.
For example, the ending of the Mr Freeze dlc mission in Arkham Knight is by far and away my own "head-canon" ending of Mr Freezes storyline.
Ahtman wrote: Well now you know more than one person who liked the Watchman movie, though I don't have any Columbine shooter anecdotes or Hitler comparisons to make about Snyder though. Sorry.
And apparently it was enough for you to use them as an (bad) example.
timetowaste85 wrote: And would you prefer Trump instead of Hitler? Or Stalin? Or Charles Manson? I picked an easily recognizable person. That's all.
I just said I didn't have one to make. For someone who brought up Hitler in a thread about movies you seem awfully sensitive about it.
Please. Your comment in response was obviously snarky and sarcastic, designed to inflame. I'm not sensitive about it; I made a point, and got met by sarcasm. So I offered other names.
And yes, when I meet one person while I worked in a comic/game store, who came in every Wednesday and Friday, picked up the same copy of watchmen every day, wore a "who watches the watchmen" shirt every single day and a trenchcoat over it, and gets in everybody's face asking them their favorite parts of watchmen, book or movie, AFTER having seen the movie and disliking it...yup, leaves a thoroughly awful mental gak-stain. I realize Moore wrote the book. But I didn't read the book. I watched Snyder's movie.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It can't just be Snyder though. Snyder isn't causing the problems with the Flash movie, and Snyder didn't make Suicide Squad.
But he's executive producer. And you can see his influence all over them. He set the bar, low as it is, and DC seemed intent (Flash being reworked could be a good thing!) on leaving it where it was.
In all fairness "executive producer" can really mean anything in regards to TV/films. It doesn't mean that they are running the show or even very involved.
But I don't think we're treading any new ground here with the MoS talk. I'm interested to see where the newer DCEU films go, although I'm afraid that they're going to emulate Marvel's worst qualities -- formulaic, bland, and so inoffensive as to be forgettable.
I don't think DC are in danger of copying The Marvel Formula. Marking themselves out as different is fundamental, even if in the short run it got BvS and MoS slammed for daring to have more ambition than the Marvel way of doing things. Behind the scenes, they might switch over to the more studio-focused method, but on-screen I think they'll continue down their route of making films to serve the characters and stories, rather than cut and pasting the same formula over and over again.
In the short term, it's biting them in the arse, but eventually people are going to tire of the standard Marvel film structure that, aside from TWS and Civil War, has remained largely unchanged since Iron Man. Which isn't to say it can't work exceptionally, Guardians and Ant-man for instance follow that narrative structure to the letter but are fun and charming enough that they're still damn enjoyable films, but ultimately people are going to cotton on, and while Marvel might change their style going into Phase 4, DC will be one step ahead.
I'm fully confident that this'll be the year DC's films start going head to head with Marvel, critically, commercially and in general audience reception. All the signs for WW and JL are good, and while there are people out there who will set out bash DC (and Snyder for some reason) without needing a reason to, I think the consensus will start to turn around... which will hopefully lead to the earlier being reconsidered as well, but if not then never mind, I'm still free to maintain that MoS and BvS are masterpieces better than even Marvel's (excellent) best efforts.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone seriously attempt to argue that WB's consistent failure to get the DCCU to live up to its potential is actually some deep, long-term supervillain master plan to position themselves for some future time when audiences, in defiance of all evidence so far, get sick of light hearted, affirming, effects-driven blockbusters in the Marvel style.
A Baldrick-esque cunning plan, maybe
EDIT: And to remain vaguely on-topic - the problem with the Flash movie is easy enough to grasp - Grant Gustin exists and anyone with a brain can see that, for all its flaws, the CW show has the actual person and character of The Flash/Barry Allen nailed to the wall. So the film version can either be the lighter, less grim-growly story & character the DCCU desperately needs, in which case it will almost certainly be compared unfavourably with the CW show, or they can push the character & story in a super grim-growly direction to differentiate it from the show, in which case it'll just sink into the melange of grey, murky, Angry Man Punchy Things Grr soup that the rest of the film universe consists of.
DC are clearly setting out to make movies that don't stick to the Marvel formula. Just as DC comics have always had a different tone to Marvel's, so do their films and that's very obviously deliberate. They could have made a Justice League film that as just a cut and paste of the Avengers script, it'd go over very well to general audiences but it'd be a massive disservice to the comics themselves.
People will tire of Marvel, unless Marvel start changing things up as well; they've been making the same film for 8 years now, and it'd done well for them but people are noticing. The trouble is that anything that doesn't follow that formula is dismissed out of hand for not being a 'proper' superhero movie. It happens to DC, but also to the recent X-men and Spidey films.
So DC's options boil down to either adopting the Marvel Formula at the cost of the integrity of their characters and source material, or they can stick to their guns and hope that one day, people realise there's more than one way to make a comic book movie, just like there's more than one way to write a comic. Fortunately, I think they're sticking to the latter, which suits me as I've loved all their output so far.
There will be lighter films (Flash, Cyborg, maybe a future Superman), but it won't be to copy Marvel, it'll be because it's what those characters are. You can't have a light, happy Batman movie because it just doesn't work with that character. You can't really do it with Aquaman or Wonder Woman either.
Ahh, so it's less an assertion that WB are devious movie geniuses, and more just plain old double-standards.
You don't like the current Marvel formula, so they should change it(and obviously audiences agree with you, despite stubbornly continuing to give Marvel money to see their films).
You do like the current WB/DC formula, so they should not change it, but only because the DC movies have "integrity" or somesuch because they're driven only by the characters, despite one of the largest criticisms of the DCCU films being that they take liberties with the characters.
Not at all. I do like the Marvel formula, they do it bloody well and continue to make fantastic films, but I don't want every comic book movie to follow that to the letter, any more than I want DC to write all their comics like Marvel. What I disagree with is the assertion that there's a right and a wrong way to make these films, and that because DC's films (or Fox's X-men or Sony's Spidermans) aren't like Marvel's they're somehow inherently worse. There seems to be a consensus among a lot of people that if a comic book movie isn't bright and colourful and light-hearted it's somehow 'wrong'.
As for the point about integrity, what I mean to say is that it'd be a disservice to (for example) Batman to make a Marvel-style movie about him even if that might make more money, hence my comment that DC should continue to do what they're doing even if in purely monetary terms they'd be better off copying the Marvel formula to the letter. You could make a Batman film by just taking the bones of an Iron Man film and doing a 'find and replace' putting Wayne where it says Stark. And it might be a good film and make boat-loads of cash, but it wouldn't be a Batman film really.
Yodhrin wrote: EDIT: And to remain vaguely on-topic - the problem with the Flash movie is easy enough to grasp - Grant Gustin exists and anyone with a brain can see that, for all its flaws, the CW show has the actual person and character of The Flash/Barry Allen nailed to the wall. So the film version can either be the lighter, less grim-growly story & character the DCCU desperately needs, in which case it will almost certainly be compared unfavourably with the CW show, or they can push the character & story in a super grim-growly direction to differentiate it from the show, in which case it'll just sink into the melange of grey, murky, Angry Man Punchy Things Grr soup that the rest of the film universe consists of.
This becomes Not A Big DealTM as soon as you consider that the movie will reach many more people than the TV show. The TV show does around a *1* rating. Even if you add in on demand viewings, etc., it's a very small percentage of TV audiences, and that makes it hard to claim that the show has the IP 'nailed to the wall'.
Also, Grant Gustin may exist, but he exists as a completely ordinary TV actor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: In all fairness "executive producer" can really mean anything in regards to TV/films. It doesn't mean that they are running the show or even very involved.
I thought the Watchman movie was the most faithful adaptation of the book that we're ever going to see in a motion picture format. The giant squid is ridiculous, and would have had audiences screaming WTF.
As for the point about integrity, what I mean to say is that it'd be a disservice to (for example) Batman to make a Marvel-style movie about him even if that might make more money, hence my comment that DC should continue to do what they're doing even if in purely monetary terms they'd be better off copying the Marvel formula to the letter. You could make a Batman film by just taking the bones of an Iron Man film and doing a 'find and replace' putting Wayne where it says Stark. And it might be a good film and make boat-loads of cash, but it wouldn't be a Batman film really.
Just saying....
And I'm almost certain it'll end up making more money than BVS. And that's someone that has BVS: Extended Cut as probably my second favourite film of 2016 (first being Rogue One, X-Men Apocalypse probably third, Deadpool 4th)
The DC movies are very true to the characters! I've lost track of the number of people Batman straight up murders in the comics I read this week. The movie captured that very well.
Where was the outrage in '89? And how was Zack Snyder to blame for that one?
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Maybe he only shoots a door with the Batmobile, but he shoots up a lot of gak with the Batwing cannons -- almost certainly killing a few of those goons -- and clearly tries to gun down the Joker with the cannons AND high-explosive rockets.
Perhaps these things that people think are immutable...aren't.
Snyder probably altered that Bob Kane artwork by drawing in that gun.
So, let me preface this with: I think that Batman killing people makes the character less interesting and, essentially less enjoyable/intriguing/exciting to watch.
However, to sort of build on the point above:
Batman '89: Like mentioned, he machine guns the heck out of a bunch of Joker goons.
Batman Returns: Stuffs some dynamite into a clowns pants and lobs him into a sewer
Batman Forever: Kills Two-Face by causing him to fall to his death
Batman & Robin: Actually doesn't kill anyone... I think. I just can't bring myself to watch it again.
Batman Begins: Burns a whole bunch of ninjas in their home. Followed by, "I don't have to kill you, I just don't have to save you." I'm pretty sure that wouldn't hold up in a court of law when you're responsible for sabotaging the vehicle in the first place.
The Dark Knight: Kills Two-Face by causing him to fall to his death (Hmm, sound familiar?). Arguably, the whole point of the film. - Breaking his one rule.
The Dark Knight Rises: Totally kills Talia and her truck driver. Just straight up murders them.
Now, lets get onto BVS. Here's the thing, played properly, I can be ok with Batman killing people in the film. Do I prefer he didn't do it? Yeah, sure but I can accept it in the context of the story that was told. And, I think... This is something that is even in the original cut of the film, not just the extended.
So, here's the thing. The Batman we see at the start of BVS, the one that kills people. He's a broken, defeated, destroyed Batman. He is one without faith, without hope. He pretty much directly says that nothing he has done in his life matters.
This Batman, one who basically doesn't care anymore. I can accept him killing. I'm not happy about it, but I can accept him killing.
Now, here's the thing, BVS is, effectively, a redemption story for Batman. That much maligned 'Martha' scene? That's a major psychological trigger for Batman. That trigger reminds him that he is doing an unjust act, just like that gunman did to his parents. And so, he stops.
And then? Superman sacrifices himself. I complained earlier in the thread about Mopey-Man and grimly dark grim darkness. But ultimately, BVS DOES have an inspiring, hopeful ending. At the end of it, we've got a Batman that has his groove back.
You'll note, that in Suicide Squad, Batman doesn't kill anyone. In fact, he actively saves Harley's life and talks Deadshot down.
And this is why, I'm cautiously optimistic for the future films.
I went into Watchmen knowing zero about the comic. I thought it was fine. Overall I don't have a problem with Snyder as a director, but I think he's a bad fit for DC, specifically Superman, because he drains all the hope out of Superman.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'm pretty sure you're just gak posting in this thread Ahtman.
Nothing about Batman holds up in a court of law so using that as a basis for complaint is a bit specious. Pretty sure recognizing that basic element isn't gak posting.
I'm not sure Affleck stepping down as director for the Batman film is necessarily a bad thing, I don't know that he's anything special as a director and if this lets him focus entirely on the performance then I'm all for it.
I can't think of any other movies, regardless of genre, where the lead was set up to direct but passed it up/was replaced, so no idea if this is good or not?
One would hope that Mr Affleck doesn't have the sort of ego which would make this a problem.
EDIT - And one also hopes the new Director is savvy enough to listen to Mr Affleck's input....I mean, I don't like Affleck's Batman, but there's no point in being at loggerheads with your lead, no?
Paradigm wrote: I'm not sure Affleck stepping down as director for the Batman film is necessarily a bad thing, I don't know that he's anything special as a director and if this lets him focus entirely on the performance then I'm all for it.
Did you see The Town or Argo? Both were absolutely excellently directed films. He's a far better director than actor actually.
Paradigm wrote: I'm not sure Affleck stepping down as director for the Batman film is necessarily a bad thing, I don't know that he's anything special as a director and if this lets him focus entirely on the performance then I'm all for it.
Did you see The Town or Argo? Both were absolutely excellently directed films. He's a far better director than actor actually.
Yeah, but Live by Night is flopping at the box office, and critics haven't been kind either.
Honestly, it looks like the guy just took on too much and needs a break. Directing and starring in a film is no easy thing, and he just poured the last couple years of his life a film to see it tank. Meanwhile, during his press tour, he got pelted with Batman questions. Because, you know, some are saying that it's up to him and his Batman movie to 'save' the entire DCEU enterprise. And never mind that the Batman film is probably three times as complex as anything he's directed before.
So yeah. The guy has been hemming and hawing in the media for weeks, and reports keep circulating that neither he nor the studio were happy with the script. He's probably having Gigli flashbacks and is ready to step back and bring in an outside perspective. We may end up with a better film here. There's talk about Matt Reeves (of the recent Planet of the Apes films) directing, but that might just be media wishlisting.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'm pretty sure you're just gak posting in this thread Ahtman.
Nothing about Batman holds up in a court of law so using that as a basis for complaint is a bit specious. Pretty sure recognizing that basic element isn't gak posting.
My favorite part is in The Dark Knight when Batman goes to China to kidnap a Chinese citizen, which would never hold up in a court of law.
1) a Prosecutor would find it nearly impossible to argue Batman wasn't an agent of the police. That big flash light on the roof is a overt statement that the two are in partnership, plus there's the co-operational stings, warranted search and seizure, and direct meetings between the District Attorney, Commissioner, and Batman. By working together Batman and the Police have to follow the same civil rights rules, which Batman basically ignores as a matter of course.
2) That makes the kidnapping of a Chinese citizen from China not only blatantly illegal but a very obvious diplomatic hydrogen bomb and guy as smart as Batman should know that XD
3) Said kidnapped Chinese citizen would be released immediately almost as a matter of course, which would basically be true of everyone Batman "arrested" because as an agent of the Police he's not aloud to beat people to a bloody pulp, or search and seize without a warrant. The court would not only have no choice but to release all the criminals he caught, but the Gotham Police Department would probably face so many lawsuits the entire city would go bankrupt.
4) You can apply this concept to virtually every costume super hero who isn't something like the Punisher, or otherwise also on the wrong side of the law which is really just pointing to the hypocritical nature of costumed superheros being defenders of "law and justice" because they're all on the wrong side of the law.
5) And that my friends is why a well done Batman movie with vintage Anarky could be a great superhero film!
Isn't apply logic and reason to Superhero films FUN?!
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'm pretty sure you're just gak posting in this thread Ahtman.
Nothing about Batman holds up in a court of law so using that as a basis for complaint is a bit specious. Pretty sure recognizing that basic element isn't gak posting.
My favorite part is in The Dark Knight when Batman goes to China to kidnap a Chinese citizen, which would never hold up in a court of law.
1) a Prosecutor would find it nearly impossible to argue Batman wasn't an agent of the police. That big flash light on the roof is a overt statement that the two are in partnership, plus there's the co-operational stings, warranted search and seizure, and direct meetings between the District Attorney, Commissioner, and Batman. By working together Batman and the Police have to follow the same civil rights rules, which Batman basically ignores as a matter of course.
2) That makes the kidnapping of a Chinese citizen from China not only blatantly illegal but a very obvious diplomatic hydrogen bomb and guy as smart as Batman should know that XD
3) Said kidnapped Chinese citizen would be released immediately almost as a matter of course, which would basically be true of everyone Batman "arrested" because as an agent of the Police he's not aloud to beat people to a bloody pulp, or search and seize without a warrant. The court would not only have no choice but to release all the criminals he caught, but the Gotham Police Department would probably face so many lawsuits the entire city would go bankrupt.
4) You can apply this concept to virtually every costume super hero who isn't something like the Punisher, or otherwise also on the wrong side of the law which is really just pointing to the hypocritical nature of costumed superheros being defenders of "law and justice" because they're all on the wrong side of the law.
5) And that my friends is why a well done Batman movie with vintage Anarky could be a great superhero film!
Isn't apply logic and reason to Superhero films FUN?!
A real vigilante wouldn't bring him back but disappear him. Real death squads are just that, death squads.
You would think it wouldn't be this difficult to make a story based on some of the most loved and mythologized characters but DC seems to have trouble with it while Marvel makes decent media based on niche characters like Dr. Strange and Luke Cage.
I'm not so sure how much of it is them struggling with the story and how much of it is more related to the other 'stuff' around the film.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you look at the extended version of Batman Versus Superman, I would quite happily argue that it is a perfectly good story. What lets it down is the other 'stuff' around it, editing the whole thing down, loopy Lex, all that sort of stuff.
But the premise, the themes, the narrative structure and generally related stuff is all, in my view, great stuff. The internet loves taking the mickey out of the "Martha? Why did you say that name?!" scene but it follows the themes of the story, it harkens back to the 'Checkov's gun' of the 'Martha' in the opening credits. You have a legitimately grief stricken, crazy, suicidal Batman with some form of even worse PTSD. Storywise, it all makes sense.
Even Suicide Squad, the story structure is fine (not great, but fine), it's the other 'stuff' around it that's the problem. - Apparently being given 6 weeks for the script, arguments in the studio about the tone.
Similarly, the problem with Batman, if there's going to be a problem with Batman, I don't think will be down to the story. It should be simple. Pick a villain (eg Deathstroke), pick a setting (Arkham Asylum). Boom, you have a story. Deathstroke, an elite assassin, is hired by persons unknown to take out an Arkham inmate before trial. Batman catches wind of this, must identify the inmate and must protect him... Or her...
Like the "Assault On Arkham" film, a jailbreak then happens and we're introduced to the DC film versions of a bunch of the rogues gallery.
If you ask me, it kinda seems like WB is trying to have its cake and eat it too with their directors. They're pursuing big names, but at a time when they're almost certainly trying to exercise more studio control under Johns in the Marvel-Feige fashion. But big names want to do things their way. Overall, Marvel's directors haven't really been an A-list bunch, and they aren't needed to be when they're generally cookie-cutter affairs down to the photography and music (Guardians being the outlier here).
Anyway, if WB really just needs crowdpleasing, fun superhero films, then maybe they just need workmanlike directors who are fine delivering that instead of striving for "the ultimate Batman movie", etc.
Regarding Snyder, I tend to immediately tune out anyone who starts on some kind of weird rant about him. He's obviously an extremely talented visual director, and Man of Steel was a good film. People -- well, geeks especially -- just tend to confuse 'a take on something I personally didn't like' with 'poor quality'. The guy only became the creative force behind the DCEU after Nolan turned it down and WB wasn't sure who else to turn to. And there's no question that he was under pressure to basically set up the entire DCEU in BvS. The studio asked for a lot. Don't get me wrong -- his execution was lacking, and I think some relatively minor changes to the film would have made a big difference.
Anyway, going forward I doubt Snyder does another DC film after JL, even if JL turns out to be a solid effort. Would anyone want to if they were in his shoes?
Regarding Snyder, I tend to immediately tune out anyone who starts on some kind of weird rant about him. He's obviously an extremely talented visual director, and Man of Steel was a good film. People -- well, geeks especially -- just tend to confuse 'a take on something I personally didn't like' with 'poor quality'. The guy only became the creative force behind the DCEU after Nolan turned it down and WB wasn't sure who else to turn to. And there's no question that he was under pressure to basically set up the entire DCEU in BvS. The studio asked for a lot. Don't get me wrong -- his execution was lacking, and I think some relatively minor changes to the film would have made a big difference.
Man of Steel was not a GOOD film. It was a barely acceptable film that poorly captured Superman; and the death of Pa Kent was dumb as gak. It's not a weird rant to say Snyder sucks. Your opinion vs mine; we're both subjective in what we like or hate. Let's let the critics decide. Oh wait...they did. MoS and Snyder suck.
People always complain about critics unless they think they agree with them, it seems. Critics don't determine whether people like a film or not and they really never have.
^Offers nothing to the conversation except telling me I'm wrong, and I'm wrong to agree with critics. Wonderful point...
And yes, if I SAY my thoughts are subjective, then they're subjective. I flat out call them subjective; if I say they are, then I shouldn't have to start every damn sentence with "I think" too. One or the other SHOULD be enough. Even for Snyder's white knights.
timetowaste85 wrote: ^Offers nothing to the conversation except telling me I'm wrong, and I'm wrong to agree with critics. Wonderful point...
So you offered nothing initially but complain about the same thing? Interesting.
timetowaste85 wrote: And yes, if I SAY my thoughts are subjective, then they're subjective.
You can say it all you want but if you present it otherwise it doesn't really matter. Screaming it and being facetious about it doesn't change it either. You seem so blinded by your dislike (sort of like what gorgon was referring to) you don't even see that you aren't in the [reasonable criticism] box but the [incoherent goofiness] box.
I guess my feeling is that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but some opinions aren't worth the time to acknowledge, or aren't reasonable or reasoned opinions in the first place. Probably 90% of the criticism that I see individuals level at Snyder's DC movies are just reductive talking points full of hate and void of real meat or viewpoint. Often they're even lies or distortions -- 'Superman never smiles' 'Superman shows no remorse about killing Zod', etc.
I realize this just reflects the sorry state of discourse in our culture (just look at politics), but that doesn't make it less juvenile or less intellectually dishonest. We've all probably seen 100 films with worse casts, worse performances, worse dialogue, worse stories, worse effects, etc. than MoS. There are elements in the film that are controversial to some -- and I can acknowledge that even if I don't have issues with those elements -- but that doesn't go to the film's *quality* or to Snyder's skill as a *director*. It's not a *bad* movie. We're not talking about Plan 9 from Outer Space.
Now BvS has its issues, especially with the story. The extended version smoothes over some of them, although it probably creates one or two others (length, lack of action). As I said, I think Snyder deserves criticism for that. His name is on the 'label'. However, I think even Spielberg, Scorsese, etc. would have had a hard time knocking that one out of the park given everything the studio was trying to do with that film. See, there's LOTS of legit, meaty stuff to discuss and pick apart there, but people would rather focus on the wrong stuff and scream about "Martha" or Batman using guns.
TL;DR - People just scream at each other and don't consider their opinions or have real discussions anymore. Still, this is a discussion board, and if someone posts an opinion that seems lazy, I think we're allowed to challenge it. "Snyder is terrible," "Man of Steel sucks" etc. is lazy.
I find the criticisms that Man of Steel was a bad feel for failing to capture Superman to be kinda silly. He wasn't Superman yet. It was his origin story of how he became Superman.
Yes the Pa Kent stuff was pants on head stupid, but the rest was mostly fine.
Better soundtrack than film though. Zimmer knocked that one out of the park.
Ahtman wrote: So you offered nothing initially but complain about the same thing? Interesting.
Yeah but he wasn't a needling jerk about it. Remember what I said about gak posting? You continue to do it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah but he wasn't a needling jerk about it. Remember what I said about gak posting? You continue to do it.
Except I'm not and for some reason you seem to have no idea what gak posting is, which is kind of sad considering that you know better. Repeating the same wrong thing, like calling something gak posting when it clearly isn't, doesn't make it eventually right somehow it just means being wrong repeatedly. I feel like at some point you just gave up on contextualizing and reading, which bothers me since you are a pretty bright guy that usually did those things.
I don't understand the criticism of MoS: *Excellent villains who have actual motivations other than twirling mustache bad guy ism. I found them very compelling.
*Undertone of sacrifice. Literally everyone in the movie is willing to sacrifice greatly for what they believe to be "good."
*Excellent writing: "I studied years honing my skills. Where did you learn yours...ON A FARM?!?" love it.
But thats ok, I find half of Marvel films basically unwatchable at this point. On the flip side I haven't seen SvsB and have no inclination to see Wonder Woman or whatever this year.
Also inversely Lego Bat Man rocks hard. Yea baby!!!*
*OK maybe I did growl at the waiter flirting with my daughter before the movie started.
I liked the acting for MoS. If the last fight scene wasn't so damnably rinse/repeat and long I would have really, really enjoyed it. It's darker than I prefer for my super hero movies but it was actually a solid film.
BvS on the other hand was terrible due to the way it was stitched together and tried to do to much with to little time. I ONLY enjoyed Affleck in that movie. The rest was a steaming pile to me as a movie goer. Because of that I held out for the extended edition of Suicide Squad which while not bad, didn't really rate on my list of watch again super hero movies. I can only imagine what I would have thought of the non-directors cut version.
Frazzled wrote: I don't understand the criticism of MoS:
*Excellent villains who have actual motivations other than twirling mustache bad guy ism. I found them very compelling.
See, what lost me was when I realised the entire conflict is completely unnecessary. Once Zod has the information he needs, why can't he just go off and terraform Mars or Venus into New Krypton, or some other planet? Why Earth? Okay, let's say Zod's a crazy racist or that only Earth will do because technobabble. But even then, his pitch kind of sucks.
"Hey, Kal-El! Now you might have gotten a bad impression of me from my gratuitously menacing and scary message where I imply I'm going to kill you as soon as we meet. But since you gave yourself up for the good of your adoptive race, it's clear to me that you care greatly for them. So can you help me turn this entire planet into a NIGHTMARE GRAVEYARD OF SKULLS? I even came up with a VR presentation, so you can properly appreciate how NIGHTMARISH this GRAVEYARD OF SKULLS will be! Worked on it myself!
"...huh looks like Kal-El doesn't want to work with us, so we'll have to fight him, and risk destroying the priceless data that's the last hope for our race. After we were so nice to him as well!"
Frazzled wrote: I don't understand the criticism of MoS:
*Excellent villains who have actual motivations other than twirling mustache bad guy ism. I found them very compelling.
See, what lost me was when I realised the entire conflict is completely unnecessary. Once Zod has the information he needs, why can't he just go off and terraform Mars or Venus into New Krypton, or some other planet? Why Earth? Okay, let's say Zod's a crazy racist or that only Earth will do because technobabble. But even then, his pitch kind of sucks.
"Hey, Kal-El! Now you might have gotten a bad impression of me from my gratuitously menacing and scary message where I imply I'm going to kill you as soon as we meet. But since you gave yourself up for the good of your adoptive race, it's clear to me that you care greatly for them. So can you help me turn this entire planet into a NIGHTMARE GRAVEYARD OF SKULLS? I even came up with a VR presentation, so you can properly appreciate how NIGHTMARISH this GRAVEYARD OF SKULLS will be! Worked on it myself!
"...huh looks like Kal-El doesn't want to work with us, so we'll have to fight him, and risk destroying the priceless data that's the last hope for our race. After we were so nice to him as well!"
I think actually watching the film answers most of your issues.
Zod and company don't know that the codex is in Clark's cells when they capture him. That vision with Zod happens during a mind probe...a persuasive argument isn't needed when they're digging around in your memories. The mind probe is made completely clear by Lois's comment after Clark saves her from the escape pod. That's why Zod goes to Smallville while Clark is still on the ship...they pulled the location of the Kent farm from their minds. The Kryptonians don't think they need Clark other than to tell them where the codex is, and once they have the info from the probes, they assume it's in his ship on the farm. It's after Clark escapes that Zod finds it isn't, and that Jax-Ur realizes the codex is in Clark's cells.
Why Earth? Well, why not? At the end, Zod has everything he needs...planet in the habitable zone, world engine, codex, birthing chamber from the scout ship. It's all right there on Earth. Why spend the resources to search for another acceptable system? In order to preserve the Earth's population? It's made abundantly clear throughout the film that Zod has no more regard for humanity than we do for ants.
I thought Zod's actions toward Clark were logical and consistent. Zod gave Clark a brief chance to get on board with the program, and given Zod's purpose he probably wouldn't kill any Kryptonian he didn't have to. But he also wasn't going to let Clark stand in his way for even a second or spend time debating with him since the survival of their race was hanging in the balance.
Frazzled wrote: Evidently the Kryptonians had attempted to colonize worlds before and failed. Hence his earlier statements about only finding death.
The colonies themselves were successful. We actually see them during the whole spiel.
"Something" happened to them. Hence the "only finding death"; they find Kryptonian corpses in what looks like a battle sequence. It's heavily implied in material surrounding the movie that the "Something" was Brainiac.
I still don't get why Zod was so aggressive? I mean, that whole part of the plot just makes no sense to me at all.
It basically boiled down to 'gives us Supes, or we'll knack your planet', followed by 'gimme the Codex, or we'll knack the planet'.
No attempt to pretend to be a good guy. Where was the attempts at negotiation, regardless of his pre-determined outcome? Perhaps 'hey, you're not alone Kal-El. Come with us. Come with us and help found New Krypton. We have the tech. You have the Codex. We can do this together'
Then have Supes, who would likely figure 'not a bad idea, actually' find a further hologram of his Dad that explains who Zod actually is etc.
Frazzled wrote: Evidently the Kryptonians had attempted to colonize worlds before and failed. Hence his earlier statements about only finding death.
The colonies themselves were successful. We actually see them during the whole spiel.
"Something" happened to them. Hence the "only finding death"; they find Kryptonian corpses in what looks like a battle sequence. It's heavily implied in material surrounding the movie that the "Something" was Brainiac.
Interesting (yes I remember the scene). Can you add more color on what material surrounding the movie?
Frazzled wrote: Evidently the Kryptonians had attempted to colonize worlds before and failed. Hence his earlier statements about only finding death.
The colonies themselves were successful. We actually see them during the whole spiel.
"Something" happened to them. Hence the "only finding death"; they find Kryptonian corpses in what looks like a battle sequence.
It's heavily implied in material surrounding the movie that the "Something" was Brainiac.
That was some good groundwork being laid there.
In other news, Matt Reeves has now officially agreed to direct The Batman after all. Here I thought the buzz that talks could resume was just studio spin, but I guess something was going on after all. And apparently Affleck made a tweet which suggests he's still on board to act.
I'm a bit iffy on the Nightwing movie to be honest. Grayson is a great character, but I think he works so much better bouncing off Bruce/Robin/Batgirl/The Titans than he does on his own. It could still be fun, but I'm not convinced he's lead material (though in fairness, I've not read much NW solo stuff). On the other hand, any opportunity to establish a proper Bat-family on the big screen is very welcome.
I do wonder how many more films DC can take on though. They've already got slots booked until 2020, and that's without dates for Batman, MoS 2, Suicide Squad 2, Harley solo film, the Black Adam spinoff and now Nightwing... it's possible they're getting a bit ahead of themselves at this point.
Paradigm wrote: I'm a bit iffy on the Nightwing movie to be honest. Grayson is a great character, but I think he works so much better bouncing off Bruce/Robin/Batgirl/The Titans than he does on his own. It could still be fun, but I'm not convinced he's lead material (though in fairness, I've not read much NW solo stuff). On the other hand, any opportunity to establish a proper Bat-family on the big screen is very welcome.
I do wonder how many more films DC can take on though. They've already got slots booked until 2020, and that's without dates for Batman, MoS 2, Suicide Squad 2, Harley solo film, the Black Adam spinoff and now Nightwing... it's possible they're getting a bit ahead of themselves at this point.
Well, nothing's a reality until they start shooting. I tend to think that anything past Aquaman that isn't named "Batman" will depend greatly on how WW and JL are received this year. There are people already gearing up to bash those movies, so they might have to be really special to overcome the negativity.
It's also possible that Nightwing, Gotham City Sirens, and SS2 are evidence of WB's backup plan. Namely, if they can't have a full DCEU, they'll just move ahead on a B(atman)EU.
Actually, a 72 is higher than a lot of movies that most people would consider to be far superior. Perhaps the lesson there is that a 'return' -- i.e. oddly apeing a defunct movie series from decades ago -- plays better even to critics than a 'beginning' -- i.e. offering a new take on a character. 
