It feels like Warner Bros. is setting up a horse race between the status quo, represented by Aquaman, and going in a different direction, represented by Shazam. So we’ll see how things go at the derby.
More or less, yes. Lots of stuff came after that original report, so the thread title is just a small portion of the story. It's all part of a contract negotiation.
WB expected it to be easy, but Cavill's rep is playing hardball. They want the job, but also want A-list pay, producer credits, director/script approval, etc. The studio likes Cavill, but think his agent is way overplaying their hand. None of his Superman movies lived up to their box office potential. Not really his fault, but he didn't 'Tom Cruise' the thing and bring the BO home either, and so they're unsure if he deserves that kind of pay and power. Some in the studio would probably be fine just moving on from Snyder's stuff and its toxicity and rebooting. Meanwhile, Cavill's been very active on social media about Superman for months...which now looks like a deliberate tactic to get the fans on his side. Smart.
The report the OP mentioned came from The Hollywood Reporter, which is often a mouthpiece for WB. So WB likely leaked that to fire a shot across their bow. Later that day, Cavill's agent tweeted that 'the cape is still in Henry's closet'. She doesn't want to lose him the job. The studio also made a lukewarm statement that day saying they like working with Henry, but didn't confirm anything re: Superman. TMZ said a few days later that it was all fake news...that there's no new Superman movie coming, so it's all irrelevant. Which...is true, but definitely a spin on the situation. WB owns TMZ, mind you. So both sides are still posturing.
The bad part for Superman fans is that it looked like a Man of Steel sequel was imminent. They were talking to directors earlier in the year. But the contract thing has the whole thing in limbo. WB's moving ahead with a Supergirl movie regardless of Cavill's situation. If he signs, great. If not, Kara Zor-El will carry the 'S' for a while until they reboot it.
See this guy's page or podcast for more info. He has great sources and usually has a good take on what's going on.
I actually really like Caville in the role. Having watched him enough in other things I don't blame my dislike of Man of Steel, Bats v Supes, or Justice League on him. He, and to a less extent Affleck, were the high points of those films. I think Caville fits the role like a glove but got hammered by crappy writing and crappier direction.
The character lacked charisma and screen presence. I mean, Supes is *the* archetype of a super hero.
Try and watch any of the modern Supes whilst listening to the John Williams music. The shoe just don’t fit!
Every time I think you've written the most ridiculous thing I've ever see you write - you prove me wrong - bravo!
Hulksmash wrote: I actually really like Caville in the role. Having watched him enough in other things I don't blame my dislike of Man of Steel, Bats v Supes, or Justice League on him. He, and to a less extent Affleck, were the high points of those films. I think Caville fits the role like a glove but got hammered by crappy writing and crappier direction.
Hulksmash wrote: I actually really like Caville in the role. Having watched him enough in other things I don't blame my dislike of Man of Steel, Bats v Supes, or Justice League on him. He, and to a less extent Affleck, were the high points of those films. I think Caville fits the role like a glove but got hammered by crappy writing and crappier direction.
I think someone put it best in a different discussion I saw about this. Cavill is a "director's actor", in that he gives the director what the director wants. So the Superman we got wasn't really Cavill's Superman, it was the director's Superman.
I really enjoyed Man of Steel, and even with all of their flaws I really liked BvS and Justice League too. Cavill makes a pretty good Superman IMO, so I hope he does stay on. Likewise, I like Ben Affleck as Batman. I thought I'd end up hating it when I first heard he was going to play Batman, but he absolutely nailed it! To me, the casting in the DC movies has been spot-on, although the writing has left much to be desired.
Good. Whether or not is was his fault, he's probably the most boring Superman I've seen. He has a grand total of two emotions, "I am Jesus" or "Pretending to be snarky." Maybe I'm spoiled by the animated Justice League supes that had, in my opinion, the best portrayal of him, but I just found his Superman so bland.
Thats probably the issue with Superman in general. He is frankly the most boring superhero. He's invincible. He can fly. He has super strength. He has Xray vision. He can hear everything everyone on the whole damn planet is saying. He doesn't need to breath air. Older versions of him could literally make up new powers.
Superman is a bad character in general. Marty Stu personified. Bland because his very nature and the way he acts is bland. He has no reason to act dynamically in action because literally nothing, besides Kryptonite, can hurt him.
DC just in general has worse characters than the Marvel universe. Batman is about the only really interesting superhero they have, and only because he doesn't have any actual powers(if we don't count BatBelt Ex Machina)
DC really is stuck with Saturday Morning Kiddy show super heroes. One dimensional and bland.
Mysterio wrote: There's a good chance Cavill will still be Superman going forward.
I think there's almost no chance Affleck continues as Batman.
Affleck is done. Apparently the new film will use a younger Batman and be more of a noir, detective story.
I dunno about Cavill. It's weird for a Hollywood contract negotiation to go so ugly in public. I think the agent may be playing it wrong. I like Cavill and want him to return, but I also think it's possible to make a great Superman film without him.
Ahh thats a shame - I thought that both actors were great. Caville's Superman has been let down by directors etc throughout. Afflick also - at least he can do an interesting Bruce Wayne unlike Nolans version.
Justice League was great - up there with Avengers for me and my friends.
I don;t suppose that they are getting rid of Eisenberg so he doesn;t ruin any more films - that would be good news.
Why would you even want this? Besides Bale disliking the character of Batman and having no respect for the source material he has been the WORST batman on film. Bales Batman is a fething idiot. Every bad guy in every movie had to explain the plot of the movie to him at the end because Bales "Worlds greatest detective" could never figure out wtf was going on.
Why would you even want this? Besides Bale disliking the character of Batman and having no respect for the source material he has been the WORST batman on film. Bales Batman is a fething idiot. Every bad guy in every movie had to explain the plot of the movie to him at the end because Bales "Worlds greatest detective" could never figure out wtf was going on.
Agreed - he was very poor as Bruce Wayne and being able to do the batman voice is something pretty much everyone can do and often does in my experience
I really like Henry Caville’s Superman. The problem with MoS, BvS and JL wasn’t his acting. Bad stories, bad writing, bad direction, gawdawful cinematography, and a desire to emulate the MCU without building a foundation first. But the actors did a good job with what they had.
The issue is DC have no idea how to use him. How long should he sit on stand by with the mustache fiasco that happened with the JL reshoots while not actually getting much or any work in the DC films?
So he has to shave his Geralt beard to do a Shazam cameo and then hold up production to grow a new one? F that. I would quit too.
Azreal13 wrote: This may shock you, but often the facial hair (or hair in general) on actors isn't their own.
Yeah, but Cavills mustache in MI is his own.There was a whole thing about DC wanting him to shave for reshoots and offering to pay to CGI it back on for MI and the MI guys told DC to get fethed. So they had to CGI the facial hair off in JL which is SUPER obvious when you know to look for it.
Why would you even want this? Besides Bale disliking the character of Batman and having no respect for the source material he has been the WORST batman on film. Bales Batman is a fething idiot. Every bad guy in every movie had to explain the plot of the movie to him at the end because Bales "Worlds greatest detective" could never figure out wtf was going on.
Agreed - he was very poor as Bruce Wayne and being able to do the batman voice is something pretty much everyone can do and often does in my experience
Holy Mandela Effect. In the nerdverse where I originated, Batman Begins and its follow on movies were hailed as the best Batman movies evah!
Semi-on-topic: What is this forum's thought on Affleck as Batman? Sounds like he's out and that people didn't like him as Bats.
Maybe not as bad as his DD portrayal hated but seems like he wasn't generally liked in the role.
Much like superman snyder wrote him poorly. He killed so many people and had so many guns. But if you got rid of the murder he looked and acted really good as bruce and bats. He did the detective bit well. Hes the first to really get the seething anger that hes got boiling inside him.
I think Zack Snyder is pretty good at casting actors for roles, like Henry Caville. And some of his movies are favorites of mine; such as Dawn of the Dead and Watchmen. Ben Affleck was good as a burned out/Dark Knight Returns style Batman. It was the writing and directing that was bad. If Snyder would put as much effort into the scripts he used as he did in to the crotch shots of the Gal Gadot maybe the DC Murderverse would be in a better place.
Christian Bale did the brooding victim of psychological damage Bruce/Batman very well. Although the voice was silly. Unfortunately the writing was the weak link in several parts. Particularly anytime Batman had to be smart, he failed. Even Superfriend's Batman would have figured out that was Thalia before she literally stabbed him in the back. That stupid look on his face made me give up on the whole trilogy. I can't watch any of them without being overtly critical of them now. I guess the Dark Knight Rises is my Last Jedi.
Michael Keaton is my favorite movie Batman.
Adam West is my Batman. Unfortunately, it was losing him that made me realize it.
Why would you even want this? Besides Bale disliking the character of Batman and having no respect for the source material he has been the WORST batman on film. Bales Batman is a fething idiot. Every bad guy in every movie had to explain the plot of the movie to him at the end because Bales "Worlds greatest detective" could never figure out wtf was going on.
Agreed - he was very poor as Bruce Wayne and being able to do the batman voice is something pretty much everyone can do and often does in my experience
Holy Mandela Effect. In the nerdverse where I originated, Batman Begins and its follow on movies were hailed as the best Batman movies evah!
Semi-on-topic: What is this forum's thought on Affleck as Batman? Sounds like he's out and that people didn't like him as Bats.
Maybe not as bad as his DD portrayal hated but seems like he wasn't generally liked in the role.
Not by me they were not. Begins is over long and has an awful white guy becomes super ninja over night sequence. Batmobile was good, Scarecrow was great - the whole stupid Chaos Ninja's plot was awful. The films go downhill from there.
Affleck as Angry Batman was great - let down by the Duirector/writers - often the way.
My fav Batman was Michael Keaton - although Lego comes a close second
Mr Morden wrote: Begins is over long and has an awful white guy becomes super ninja over night sequence.
While I would agree Bruce Wayne is unquestionably white, in the version of Batman Begins I saw he was gone for a long time, almost a decade, and was already a martial artist when he began training with the League of Shadows.
Also Bale was a great Batman and a pretty awful Bruce Wayne imo.
Much like superman snyder wrote him poorly. He killed so many people and had so many guns. But if you got rid of the murder he looked and acted really good as bruce and bats. He did the detective bit well. Hes the first to really get the seething anger that hes got boiling inside him.
Actor good. Writing/directing as bas as its been.
So regarding killing...I admit that even I threw up my hands when Snyder recently declared (on social media) that the dead Robin in the Batcave was intended to be Dick Grayson (although it was never actually established in the movie). WTF? The point of building a cinematic universe is to open up possibilities, not repeatedly close them by offing everyone in sight.
But soon after that reveal, Snyder confirmed that what he was building was a 4 or 5 movie story(!) -- with some side films that interfaced. It was never going to be like the MCU. So I think the overall arc becomes pretty clear.
After MoS, WB -- lacking a vision of their own -- handed a giant blank check and all kinds of power to Zack Snyder to build them some connected DC films. Snyder went off feeling fully empowered to build his dark, Injustice-inspired story. Then when the studio finally (around the time of BvS's release) understood what Snyder was building for them and how it really didn't fit their needs (and wasn't connecting with audiences)...a whole lot of buyer's remorse kicked in. The studio got involved and the rest is history.
Anyway, I thought Batfleck was solid in the role, but it's important to note that he's in his 40s. That didn't matter to Snyder because he wasn't building a new Batman franchise. But the studio's interested in that, and so recasting the role just makes sense all around now that they're heading that way under Matt Reeves.
I’m kinda sad to see him go tbh. There was never anything wrong with the casting of the DC movies imo. Just the writing, directing, visuals...everything else really. Even Eisenberg Luther had potential.
Future War Cultist wrote: I’m kinda sad to see him go tbh. There was never anything wrong with the casting of the DC movies imo. Just the writing, directing, visuals...everything else really. Even Eisenberg Luther had potential.
Agree with everything apart from the last element - he was pure gak.
I liked Cavil as Supes, well, I liked the potential he had to be a good supes. You saw glimpses of it, if he is gone thats a shame.
Batfleck has been my favorite live action Batman and Bruce Wayne, he played both persona's very well. While he will never top the best Batman, Conroy, he is good and I would like to see more of him in the role as older Bats.
Ideally if Alfeck is leaving they would set up Dick Greyson and just have him take over as Bats for the DCEU.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: I liked Cavil as Supes, well, I liked the potential he had to be a good supes. You saw glimpses of it, if he is gone thats a shame.
Batfleck has been my favorite live action Batman and Bruce Wayne, he played both persona's very well. While he will never top the best Batman, Conroy, he is good and I would like to see more of him in the role as older Bats.
Ideally if Alfeck is leaving they would set up Dick Greyson and just have him take over as Bats for the DCEU.
Other than the ongoing mutiple car crash that was Eisenberg's terrible portayal of Luther I am not sure any of the DC roles have been miscast.
Batman -Angry Batman worked for me - he kills people, meh - so did Keaton's
Wonder Woman - great choice, pretty much flawless
Superman - no issues with him at all, seemed to work well and the ladies I know were certainly impressed.
Flash - again all good.
Aquaman - all good
Cyborg - all good
Deadshot - Its Will Smith - if you like him (I do) all good.
Harley - Margot was ace.
Even Carla Delevegne was fine at first - if they had given her something to do after the first half other than undulate......
Affleck being out as Batman is pretty amazing news. He was easily the worst so far. Bad acting and bad scripts. Snyder shouldn't be allowed to touch DC Material anymore.
Christian Bale did the brooding victim of psychological damage Bruce/Batman very well. Although the voice was silly. Unfortunately the writing was the weak link in several parts. Particularly anytime Batman had to be smart, he failed. Even Superfriend's Batman would have figured out that was Thalia before she literally stabbed him in the back. That stupid look on his face made me give up on the whole trilogy. I can't watch any of them without being overtly critical of them now. I guess the Dark Knight Rises is my Last Jedi.
In the Nolan Batman, at what point in Bruce's life would he have gone through the training to be a great detective and how would that have fit in with a backstory for him? Or when did he have the opportunity to get an education?
Really they played him well with the backstory they gave him. He was a man. Not a superguy who had super detective superabilities.
Crimson Devil wrote: Batman without his brain or ethics, and who kills is just the Punisher with more toys.
Sure, I mean that oversimplifies a lot of the Punishes and throws out every other important thing about Batman. But if you hammer it hard enough, the circle will fit in the square.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: Ideally if Alfeck is leaving they would set up Dick Greyson and just have him take over as Bats for the DCEU.
Nah, they're just going to reboot it with a new actor. From what I've read, the DC universe will be only loosely connected going forward, and there will be "Elseworlds" type projects like the J. Phoenix Joker movie. That's probably why "The Worlds of DC" seems to be the new operating title for the DCEU.
Regarding continuity, consider this. It was established in BvS and JL that WW went into hiding for decades, right? And yet WW 1984 is almost certainly going to show her operating in public in the '80s. Going forward, each filmmaker will probably be empowered to ignore whatever they want from the Snyderverse era.
FWIW on the Dick Grayson front, director Chris McKay is attached to Nightwing, although it could be years before it moves forward (if at all). Supposedly Lewis Tan (Deadpool 2, Into the Badlands, Iron Fist, etc.) met with WB and Nightwing came up.
Dreadwinter wrote: Affleck being out as Batman is pretty amazing news. He was easily the worst so far. Bad acting and bad scripts. Snyder shouldn't be allowed to touch DC Material anymore.
Christian Bale did the brooding victim of psychological damage Bruce/Batman very well. Although the voice was silly. Unfortunately the writing was the weak link in several parts. Particularly anytime Batman had to be smart, he failed. Even Superfriend's Batman would have figured out that was Thalia before she literally stabbed him in the back. That stupid look on his face made me give up on the whole trilogy. I can't watch any of them without being overtly critical of them now. I guess the Dark Knight Rises is my Last Jedi.
In the Nolan Batman, at what point in Bruce's life would he have gone through the training to be a great detective and how would that have fit in with a backstory for him? Or when did he have the opportunity to get an education?
Really they played him well with the backstory they gave him. He was a man. Not a superguy who had super detective superabilities.
Nolan really didn;t think that much about it - he just went with oh look white guy goes to Tibet and becomes the bestest super ninja ever cos reasons.
I don't recall us seeing much about his life between his parents dying just gets raised by Alfred - isnt there a time jump. I assume he stil had an education given the vast resources there.
Batman without his brain or ethics, and who kills is just the Punisher with more toys
Batman who kills is just a different Batman - see Elseworlds - Keatons Batman kills .
That's probably why "The Worlds of DC" seems to be the new operating title for the DCEU.
So, WB is admitting that their attempt at a cinematic DC universe is a failure then?
The recent revelation from Zack Snyder was that he was building a contained story, not a universe that would continue indefinitely like Marvel. So yes? No? I think it means that whatever it was before, it’s different now. It’s definitely not going to have tight continuity. And I think that will work better for them. They aren’t a ‘master control’ kind of studio.
Dreadwinter wrote: Affleck being out as Batman is pretty amazing news. He was easily the worst so far. Bad acting and bad scripts. Snyder shouldn't be allowed to touch DC Material anymore.
Christian Bale did the brooding victim of psychological damage Bruce/Batman very well. Although the voice was silly. Unfortunately the writing was the weak link in several parts. Particularly anytime Batman had to be smart, he failed. Even Superfriend's Batman would have figured out that was Thalia before she literally stabbed him in the back. That stupid look on his face made me give up on the whole trilogy. I can't watch any of them without being overtly critical of them now. I guess the Dark Knight Rises is my Last Jedi.
In the Nolan Batman, at what point in Bruce's life would he have gone through the training to be a great detective and how would that have fit in with a backstory for him? Or when did he have the opportunity to get an education?
Really they played him well with the backstory they gave him. He was a man. Not a superguy who had super detective superabilities.
Nolan really didn;t think that much about it - he just went with oh look white guy goes to Tibet and becomes the bestest super ninja ever cos reasons.
I don't recall us seeing much about his life between his parents dying just gets raised by Alfred - isnt there a time jump. I assume he stil had an education given the vast resources there.
Batman without his brain or ethics, and who kills is just the Punisher with more toys
Batman who kills is just a different Batman - see Elseworlds - Keatons Batman kills .
There is a time jump but I think it is brought up in the movies that he goes "missing" pretty early on in his adulthood. Which is basically when he becomes the super ninja. Nolanverse Batman is not a super detective. Nolanverse Batman is a ninja with gadgets and its about 1000x better and more believable than super plot armor detective batman.
Yes, when I go to a Batman movie my primary concern is if it will be believable.
(I was lying. However, I felt that was better than asking what part of the Nolan trilogy was believable. That microwave emitter plot was up there with dehydrating the UN Security Council on the reality-o-meter.)
There is a time jump but I think it is brought up in the movies that he goes "missing" pretty early on in his adulthood. Which is basically when he becomes the super ninja. Nolanverse Batman is not a super detective. Nolanverse Batman is a ninja with gadgets and its about 1000x better and more believable than super plot armor detective batman.
You can like whatever you like and feel however you want to feel.
But this is dead wrong.
Batman being a detective is his whole thing. Maybe you are unaware, but Batmans comic since his first appearance wasn't called "Batman". It was called "Detective Comics". Batman not being a detective is like Superman not being a Kryptonian.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Yes, when I go to a Batman movie my primary concern is if it will be believable.
(I was lying. However, I felt that was better than asking what part of the Nolan trilogy was believable. That microwave emitter plot was up there with dehydrating the UN Security Council on the reality-o-meter.)
Well, when you go to a Batman movie you should be more interested in a believable character. Remember how they always bring up that Batman has no superpowers and he is just a human. The things he does should be believable.
There is a time jump but I think it is brought up in the movies that he goes "missing" pretty early on in his adulthood. Which is basically when he becomes the super ninja. Nolanverse Batman is not a super detective. Nolanverse Batman is a ninja with gadgets and its about 1000x better and more believable than super plot armor detective batman.
You can like whatever you like and feel however you want to feel.
But this is dead wrong.
Batman being a detective is his whole thing. Maybe you are unaware, but Batmans comic since his first appearance wasn't called "Batman". It was called "Detective Comics". Batman not being a detective is like Superman not being a Kryptonian.
Sure, yeah. Batman not being a detective is exactly the same as Superman not being from a dying planet that gives him his iconic superpowers and backstory. Maybe you are unaware, but professions and origins are really really different things.
Yes. They are the same thing. Superman not being an alien that gives him his iconic superpowers and backstory is exactly the same as Batman not being a detective which gives him his iconic crime fighting methodology, stories, and background.
Those are exactly the same.
Thats not sarcasm though I realize you might be reading it that way. What I am saying is literally those words. Batman not being a detective makes him not batman. It's a different character. If hes not a detective then there is no reason for it to be a batman movie.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In fact, the Nolan movies started with Ra's Al Gul. A villian who calls Batman...
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Yes, when I go to a Batman movie my primary concern is if it will be believable.
I think the funnest part of those movies is taking an outlandish situation, like Batman, and then managing to sell it well enough that you can actually suspend disbelief.
Also, unpopular opinion but I thought Ben Affleck was pretty solid as Batman.
Lance845 wrote: Yes. They are the same thing. Superman not being an alien that gives him his iconic superpowers and backstory is exactly the same as Batman not being a detective which gives him his iconic crime fighting methodology, stories, and background.
Those are exactly the same.
Thats not sarcasm though I realize you might be reading it that way. What I am saying is literally those words. Batman not being a detective makes him not batman. It's a different character. If hes not a detective then there is no reason for it to be a batman movie.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In fact, the Nolan movies started with Ra's Al Gul. A villian who calls Batman...
(Watch from the 1 minute mark)
The Batman equivalent would be changing his parents deaths or what the Waynes are, not that he is a detective.
One assumes any crime fighter is a detective in some way. Hell, the Punisher is a bit of a detective. Big woop.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Well, my favorite Batman movie is still Batman: The Movie, so yeah, believability really isn't a factor for me.
And I also really liked Ben Affleck in BVS. I still haven't seen JL.
Was he really that unpopular - eg we ahve all disagreed about various things on this thread but can;t recall anyone sating BA was a bad Batman or indeed Bruce - that was my main problem with CBs Batman, whilst Bruce Wayne may live in Batmans attic - you need to put some effort into the Bruce Wayne Character as well!
The Nolan movies started with Ra's Al Gul
No idea if he is in the comics but in the film that character is not good with his league of useless ninjas and insane plans
Nolanverse Batman is not a super detective. Nolanverse Batman is a ninja with gadgets and its about 1000x better and more believable than super plot armor detective batman.
I’m one of those who thinks that batman movies should feature the detective aspect of the character. Done right it could turn the movie into a properly tense thriller. Action scenes are great and all but the whole movie can’t be one long fight scene.
To avoid turning the thread into a “How the DC movies should be made” one I’ll just say again that they missed a chance with Caville. You had a great actor for the role but you went and mucked it up...3 times over.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: I liked Cavil as Supes, well, I liked the potential he had to be a good supes. You saw glimpses of it, if he is gone thats a shame.
Batfleck has been my favorite live action Batman and Bruce Wayne, he played both persona's very well. While he will never top the best Batman, Conroy, he is good and I would like to see more of him in the role as older Bats.
Ideally if Alfeck is leaving they would set up Dick Greyson and just have him take over as Bats for the DCEU.
Other than the ongoing mutiple car crash that was Eisenberg's terrible portayal of Luther I am not sure any of the DC roles have been miscast.
Batman -Angry Batman worked for me - he kills people, meh - so did Keaton's
Wonder Woman - great choice, pretty much flawless
Superman - no issues with him at all, seemed to work well and the ladies I know were certainly impressed.
Flash - again all good.
Aquaman - all good
Cyborg - all good
Deadshot - Its Will Smith - if you like him (I do) all good.
Harley - Margot was ace.
Even Carla Delevegne was fine at first - if they had given her something to do after the first half other than undulate......
its not the cast thats the problem.
The Flash was okay? Really? If they had named him ANYTHING other than Barry Allen, I'd agree with you. As it stands, I don't know WHAT the hell that was, but it wasn't The Flash.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: I liked Cavil as Supes, well, I liked the potential he had to be a good supes. You saw glimpses of it, if he is gone thats a shame.
Batfleck has been my favorite live action Batman and Bruce Wayne, he played both persona's very well. While he will never top the best Batman, Conroy, he is good and I would like to see more of him in the role as older Bats.
Ideally if Alfeck is leaving they would set up Dick Greyson and just have him take over as Bats for the DCEU.
Other than the ongoing mutiple car crash that was Eisenberg's terrible portayal of Luther I am not sure any of the DC roles have been miscast.
Batman -Angry Batman worked for me - he kills people, meh - so did Keaton's
Wonder Woman - great choice, pretty much flawless
Superman - no issues with him at all, seemed to work well and the ladies I know were certainly impressed.
Flash - again all good.
Aquaman - all good
Cyborg - all good
Deadshot - Its Will Smith - if you like him (I do) all good.
Harley - Margot was ace.
Even Carla Delevegne was fine at first - if they had given her something to do after the first half other than undulate......
its not the cast thats the problem.
The Flash was okay? Really? If they had named him ANYTHING other than Barry Allen, I'd agree with you. As it stands, I don't know WHAT the hell that was, but it wasn't The Flash.
I don't know anything about him other than what I have seen on Big Bang and the JL film - from that perspective he seemed fine. Same with Aquaman
There is a time jump but I think it is brought up in the movies that he goes "missing" pretty early on in his adulthood. Which is basically when he becomes the super ninja. Nolanverse Batman is not a super detective. Nolanverse Batman is a ninja with gadgets and its about 1000x better and more believable than super plot armor detective batman.
You can like whatever you like and feel however you want to feel.
But this is dead wrong.
Batman being a detective is his whole thing. Maybe you are unaware, but Batmans comic since his first appearance wasn't called "Batman". It was called "Detective Comics". Batman not being a detective is like Superman not being a Kryptonian.
Batman, like most superheroes, has been different things at different times. The Nolan/Bale Batman was definitely a militarized rage tank, and a response to 9/11 and what came after. However, there are moments in Batman Begins and TDK that he's shown doing a little bit of detective work.
And regardless of the character's origin, there are many, many issues of Batman comics (maybe even most) that are more heroic or fantastical and don't read like a detective procedural.
If you like the detective angle, you'll probably like Matt Reeves' upcoming movie. Apparently there'll be more focus on his detective work.
Future War Cultist wrote: I’m one of those who thinks that batman movies should feature the detective aspect of the character. Done right it could turn the movie into a properly tense thriller. Action scenes are great and all but the whole movie can’t be one long fight scene.
I agree, and I loved Afleck as Batman. Just watched Batman v Superman again last night and whatever gripes you can have about the film he is not one of them. None of the other Batmans would have fit the part. I guess you either like Afleck or you don't. And the fight scenes are the best I have seen Batman in. Even Batman vs Bane was pretty disappointing. It was cool, but not Epic. Batman against KG Beast's gang was epic.
I loved Afleck as Bruce Wayne too. Much preferred his take and look versus Batman Rises version. I loved he was jaded. I loved that he killed from time to time too. And I thought the beginning of him running to his office was one of the best scenes in the movie.
I loved the newer batmobile too, and the batwing, but to be honest, I know they are part of Batman, but I just don't see Bruce being able to hide his identity for long driving around in those. To me, Batman is somewhat insane and a criminal. I feel most of his best villains are in the shadows where he belongs too. Batman is best fighting in the sewers, crack houses, and in the warehouse district and so on, versus some of the over the top stuff we have seen him do. Some of it, when you think about it, just looks ridiculous. I prefer Batman in the dark, spooking the criminals he is trying to stop, but forced to go into the shadows where they lurk, and not responding to the bat signal. And I prefer detective over gadget man too.
Ben Affleck. His acting was pretty awful. I watched Justice League recently and it really felt like he was phoning it in/didn't give a gak. He just had no energy as Batman or Bruce. Which is crazy because Bruce is supposed to be a big playboy party guy and when he was Bruce, he just seemed like an old fart who needed his rocking chair.
Also the batsuit looks like they fished it out of a trashcan and he got blind al to sow it up for him. But that probably isn't Afflecks fault.
Ben Affleck. His acting was pretty awful. I watched Justice League recently and it really felt like he was phoning it in/didn't give a gak. He just had no energy as Batman or Bruce. Which is crazy because Bruce is supposed to be a big playboy party guy and when he was Bruce, he just seemed like an old fart who needed his rocking chair.
Also the batsuit looks like they fished it out of a trashcan and he got blind al to sow it up for him. But that probably isn't Afflecks fault.
I think the whole point was that this was an ageing and tired Batman who was super angry in Bats vs Sups, felt he got Sups killed and was now regreting it, hence the muted version..
Best Bruce I felt was Keaton and he was no party animal but he did(does) have a twitch slightly mad energy.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: I liked Cavil as Supes, well, I liked the potential he had to be a good supes. You saw glimpses of it, if he is gone thats a shame.
Batfleck has been my favorite live action Batman and Bruce Wayne, he played both persona's very well. While he will never top the best Batman, Conroy, he is good and I would like to see more of him in the role as older Bats.
Ideally if Alfeck is leaving they would set up Dick Greyson and just have him take over as Bats for the DCEU.
Other than the ongoing mutiple car crash that was Eisenberg's terrible portayal of Luther I am not sure any of the DC roles have been miscast.
Batman -Angry Batman worked for me - he kills people, meh - so did Keaton's
Wonder Woman - great choice, pretty much flawless
Superman - no issues with him at all, seemed to work well and the ladies I know were certainly impressed.
Flash - again all good.
Aquaman - all good
Cyborg - all good
Deadshot - Its Will Smith - if you like him (I do) all good.
Harley - Margot was ace.
Even Carla Delevegne was fine at first - if they had given her something to do after the first half other than undulate......
its not the cast thats the problem.
The Flash was okay? Really? If they had named him ANYTHING other than Barry Allen, I'd agree with you. As it stands, I don't know WHAT the hell that was, but it wasn't The Flash.
JL Flash should have been Wally West, thats just me speaking from knowing the character of Wally mostly through the JL and JLU cartoon though.
As for someone mentioning Bale's Bruce, the only part that did anything for me was him doing some of the playboy bits. But even then, I prefered the hints at it through him waking up with a random woman in BvS and Alfred's nagging across BvS and JL about him being single. He was Batman at a different stage of his life and we didnt need to see him constantly trying to be the playboy.
In the comics batman has existed in various times and places as different things. A caveman. A cowboy. An actual ninja. A communist. What every one of those batmen has been is a detective. They ALWAYS investigate the enemy and beat them by finding out and exploiting weaknesses and being smart enough to do so. By discovering their plan and thwarting it. By figuring out who dun it and tracking them down.
Batmans fighting can vary wildly. He doesnt have to be "a ninja". But he does have to be a detective. Its his actual key ability that defines him.
Lance845 wrote: In the comics batman has existed in various times and places as different things. A caveman. A cowboy. An actual ninja. A communist. What every one of those batmen has been is a detective. They ALWAYS investigate the enemy and beat them by finding out and exploiting weaknesses and being smart enough to do so. By discovering their plan and thwarting it. By figuring out who dun it and tracking them down.
Batmans fighting can vary wildly. He doesnt have to be "a ninja". But he does have to be a detective. Its his actual key ability that defines him.
Problem being our current films and telly doesn't do clever well, we'd end up with a CSI level magic lab Batcave or him pulling stuff out of his Bat-End that the viewer had no previous hint at (see later Beenybaby Cummerbund Sherlock)
Dreadwinter wrote: Keaton was good but then again, he is in almost everything.
I also liked the Bale version of Bruce. He made a point to be a showman and a life of the party to distract from his special activities.
That movie went through so many changes to its script and tone that I can't really blame Affleck for struggling.
The Batsuit is the best we've seen on film IMO. Looks right out of a Jim Lee illustration. Although I'll say I like the BvS version better than the slightly-different JL version.
The primary issue with using Snyder as the foundation for an MCU competitor is that Snyder himself doesn't really like comics in the form of an ongoing medium. He's clearly fond of a specific brand of fatalistic, deconstructionist brand of comics and while those stories ARE great, they're inherently limited. They're about collapse and failure and end in ways that don't really contribute to long running franchises. Mix that with a bit of a blank check for reimaginings in the wake of Nolan's success (which also had limited ongoing appeal) and you end up with characters that just don't function together as needed for a shared world.
I can't really blame the actors for any of it. They might be bad? They might be good? It's hard to tell based on what they've been given to work with. Ultimately though, the blame seems to really point to WB itself and their tendency to chase trends. The MCU works because its essentially a product of the forced will of the creators of the comics to realize the appeal of the source material in movies. WB seems to only tangentially understand the appeal of the characters it owns and keeps assuming it can make money by slamming them into whatever seemed big in the years before they got someone to try and copy things.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Yes, when I go to a Batman movie my primary concern is if it will be believable.
(I was lying. However, I felt that was better than asking what part of the Nolan trilogy was believable. That microwave emitter plot was up there with dehydrating the UN Security Council on the reality-o-meter.)
Lance845 wrote: In the comics batman has existed in various times and places as different things. A caveman. A cowboy. An actual ninja. A communist. What every one of those batmen has been is a detective. They ALWAYS investigate the enemy and beat them by finding out and exploiting weaknesses and being smart enough to do so. By discovering their plan and thwarting it. By figuring out who dun it and tracking them down.
Batmans fighting can vary wildly. He doesnt have to be "a ninja". But he does have to be a detective. Its his actual key ability that defines him.
Problem being our current films and telly doesn't do clever well, we'd end up with a CSI level magic lab Batcave or him pulling stuff out of his Bat-End that the viewer had no previous hint at (see later Beenybaby Cummerbund Sherlock)
LunarSol wrote: WB seems to only tangentially understand the appeal of the characters it owns and keeps assuming it can make money by slamming them into whatever seemed big in the years before they got someone to try and copy things.
It's interesting to me that Justice League Mortal would have launched a shared DC universe right about the same time as Iron Man. Christopher Nolan -- famously not a fan of shared universes for these characters -- helped get that shut down. Before that -- per The Fanboy podcast guy (he has good sources) -- it's not an accident that the titles for Batman Begins and Superman Returns fit together so well. Nolan probably wouldn't have liked where that would have gone either, but apparently it was an idea brewing within the studio that they were setting up. And even after the MCU launched, Green Lantern was looked at as the possible beginning of a DCU. It wasn't until MoS (ironically involving the Nolans) that they got a film to stick enough to build on.
Seems like the trouble really came in at that point. They asked Nolan to Feige the whole thing and he turned them down. So they turned to Zack Snyder and handed him a billion dollars to go build a universe, apparently without understanding what they needed or what Snyder was going to build. At that point, yes they were probably blinded by MCU box office receipts, didn't understand those characters' appeal, and frankly were just asleep at the wheel until BvS opened like it did.
Getting back to directors with specific visions for specific characters and not sweating the shared part much -- that seems much more in WB's wheelhouse.
But Ben Affleck did as good as job as anyone with the gawdawful mess he was handed. I didn’t like Dark Knight Rises very much and was concerned when Affleck was first announced, but much like Michael Keaton, he surprised me with how well he played the part. Keaton was just fortunate enough to have a better script and director.
I dont think the Nolan movies will age well. There is simply too much Bruce Wayne and not enough Batman. And the while I love Scarecrow, Joker, Two Face, I just feel most are forgettable actors.
Batman has evolved with the times. I thought it was great they made the Keaton's Batman, but while I thought Keaton was good as Batman, I thought he was a lame Bruce Wayne. But the film couldn't be made more violent where as today its expected to be. Nolan's Batman grounds and modernizes it, but aside from the Joker scenes the whole series is kind of forgettable.
I really thought they were on to something with Suicide Squad, Afleck's Batman, and even Caville as Superman: He nailed the look for me. And while the gorgeous Gal Gadot can't act, she makes for one gorgeous Wonder Woman.
I think part of the problem for DC are the characters. Their powers are all mismatched. You need to draft a story so that each can shine within the story arc that another can't do to make them all feel like they are on the same level, which is lazy. Superman is really too powerful and should be able to handle everything on his own. Wonder Woman's powers really don't make much sense. Cyborg is really boring. Flash, well... I have never seen the draw to him. Batman, while the more realistic, is overpowered by everyone. Oh and then there is Aquaman, who is all about fighting crime and saving the world while humans pollute his home and kill off all the animals and coral reefs? lol
Anyway, part of the problem with WB/DC rebooting these characters over and over again is that everyone is sick of the origin stories. We've seen them too many times. Yet, its hard to start a reboot without capturing the moment the stories started.
Marvel got lucky but it didn't take long for them to get their plan together and stick to it. They have a lot more fun characters too. But they manage their own affairs and know their characters. DC gives WB too much freedom and WB gives their directors too much freedom. What you get is a lot of shooting from the hip rather than any plan. They should have wrapped up Caville for a lot longer than they did.
I don't think JL is that good of a movie. Especially since Superman was dead and they brought him back. They have nothing to build up to now. That is part of the problem with Man Of Steel and seeing Metropolis getting wrecked. It was probably fine for a one-off movie, but now where do you go? So much was trashed in the first battle that if you don't have the same level of destruction in the others there feels like there was less at stake. And I hate these massive destruction battles, unless they come at the climax of the story.
Marvel individual movies didn't have any of that, the stories were more grounded so by the time the aliens are coming through the portal in Avengers, you realize how big of a moment this is.
Well put. Let’s be honest, DCs characters are kind of all over the place. Superman is hilariously, ridiculously overpowered, whilst it takes some serious story telling gymnastics to keep Batman up with the others. I’ve no idea how that could be addressed tbh.
You balance Batman against overpowered Superman and WW by doing what they've done in the comics for many years -- you overpower his brain. Batman is always two steps ahead, always has a flawless plan that can be carried out flawlessly, etc.
You balance Superman by giving him loved ones that are vulnerable and villains that are on his power level. Like they've done in the comics for decades.
Those kinds of narratives are offered up by people who obviously don't read comics, because the answers are IN the comics. Ask Mark Waid or Grant Morrison if Superman is hard to write for and they'll laugh at you.
KTG17 wrote: I dont think the Nolan movies will age well. There is simply too much Bruce Wayne and not enough Batman. And the while I love Scarecrow, Joker, Two Face, I just feel most are forgettable actors.
I really thought they were on to something with Suicide Squad, Afleck's Batman, and even Caville as Superman: He nailed the look for me. And while the gorgeous Gal Gadot can't act, she makes for one gorgeous Wonder Woman.
Anyway, part of the problem with WB/DC rebooting these characters over and over again is that everyone is sick of the origin stories. We've seen them too many times. Yet, its hard to start a reboot without capturing the moment the stories started.
Marvel got lucky but it didn't take long for them to get their plan together and stick to it. They have a lot more fun characters too. But they manage their own affairs and know their characters. DC gives WB too much freedom and WB gives their directors too much freedom. What you get is a lot of shooting from the hip rather than any plan. They should have wrapped up Caville for a lot longer than they did.
Marvel individual movies didn't have any of that, the stories were more grounded so by the time the aliens are coming through the portal in Avengers, you realize how big of a moment this is.
Nolan is massively overated, otherwise can;t agree with anything you say - but each to their own.
Batman has evolved with the times. I thought it was great they made the Keaton's Batman, but while I thought Keaton was good as Batman, I thought he was a lame Bruce Wayne. But the film couldn't be made more violent where as today its expected to be. Nolan's Batman grounds and modernises it, but aside from the Joker scenes the whole series is kind of forgettable.
Burtons Batman is way more violent film than and Joker way more mad and dangerous than Heath Ledgers - he also does not rely on flawless precog abilities to do stuff through most of the film. He kills a museum full of people just to be alone with Vicky Vale, Ledger kills a few mobsters, Jack tries to poison the whole city - cos its funny. He makes "art" of his girlfriend - using acid. Scary guy.
I think part of the problem for DC are the characters. Their powers are all mismatched. You need to draft a story so that each can shine within the story arc that another can't do to make them all feel like they are on the same level, which is lazy. Superman is really too powerful and should be able to handle everything on his own. Wonder Woman's powers really don't make much sense. Cyborg is really boring. Flash, well... I have never seen the draw to him. Batman, while the more realistic, is overpowered by everyone. Oh and then there is Aquaman, who is all about fighting crime and saving the world while humans pollute his home and kill off all the animals and coral reefs? lol
Funny cos i felt that about Iron man, Hawkeye and the rest of the Marvel characters before the films - most of them i had barely heard off and nothing good.
Why don't Wonder Woman's powers make sense - she is a goddess, same as Thor is a god.
Batman is normally the clever one - the man with the plan.
I don't think JL is that good of a movie. Especially since Superman was dead and they brought him back. They have nothing to build up to now. That is part of the problem with Man Of Steel and seeing Metropolis getting wrecked. It was probably fine for a one-off movie, but now where do you go? So much was trashed in the first battle that if you don't have the same level of destruction in the others there feels like there was less at stake. And I hate these massive destruction battles, unless they come at the climax of the story.
JL does many things well - they don;t bother with long origin stories for Aquaman, Cyborg or Flash - they just get on with it and it works much better for it. Man of Steel had the worst fight final scene of a superhero film that I can recall - the bats vs Superman version of the same fight was so much better. But then pretty much every scene WITHOUT Loopy Lex worked for me in that film. Although BvS was ohh yeah the fight is in the magical empty bit of the city.......that was weak.
Re Keaton and Bruce - anyone can do Batman - most of us have done it round the game table, Wayne is the difficult one - and I thought he nailed it - someone who was broken but mostly conceals it, so you just catch glimpses.
Best Batman was Lego Batman. All other choices are inferior.
The big translation loss with most DC characters for me has always been the characters themselves. They feel more defined in adaptations by their powers and how they got them then the person underneath which is the real appeal. There's a reason 6 characters all with the same Green Lantern powers isn't repetitive and its because GL stories are heavily driven by the character underneath.
I think part of the reason WB has so much success with Batman is that the "Bruce is the mask" concept translates into them "getting" Batman a lot easier than other characters. When it comes to people like Clark or Barry and the rest, they seem to think changing them into some other popular character and slapping on their power set is good enough. The movies need to get to the heart of the characters and what motivates them without the mask. This has always been what separates DC's best stories from its general schlock (outside of one off elseworld tales) and something that's really needed if they want to make anything more than Batman work.
LunarSol wrote: The big translation loss with most DC characters for me has always been the characters themselves. They feel more defined in adaptations by their powers and how they got them then the person underneath which is the real appeal. There's a reason 6 characters all with the same Green Lantern powers isn't repetitive and its because GL stories are heavily driven by the character underneath.
I think part of the reason WB has so much success with Batman is that the "Bruce is the mask" concept translates into them "getting" Batman a lot easier than other characters. When it comes to people like Clark or Barry and the rest, they seem to think changing them into some other popular character and slapping on their power set is good enough. The movies need to get to the heart of the characters and what motivates them without the mask. This has always been what separates DC's best stories from its general schlock (outside of one off elseworld tales) and something that's really needed if they want to make anything more than Batman work.
Agreed its what marvel do so well but I also thought they did it well in WW, JL and to a lesser extent in SS.
LunarSol wrote: The big translation loss with most DC characters for me has always been the characters themselves. They feel more defined in adaptations by their powers and how they got them then the person underneath which is the real appeal. There's a reason 6 characters all with the same Green Lantern powers isn't repetitive and its because GL stories are heavily driven by the character underneath.
I think part of the reason WB has so much success with Batman is that the "Bruce is the mask" concept translates into them "getting" Batman a lot easier than other characters. When it comes to people like Clark or Barry and the rest, they seem to think changing them into some other popular character and slapping on their power set is good enough. The movies need to get to the heart of the characters and what motivates them without the mask. This has always been what separates DC's best stories from its general schlock (outside of one off elseworld tales) and something that's really needed if they want to make anything more than Batman work.
See, I didn't have issues with Ezra Miller's Flash because I thought the underlying concept was on target. The personality was obviously closer to Wally West than Barry Allen, who historically was a fairly straight-laced, boring guy.
But what JL showed was an emergent superhuman -- a guy who was completely normal all his life but gained infinite gifts in an instant (one can make the case for Flash being more powerful than Superman). So to portray him as an unsure guy still figuring out his abilities and what he should be doing with them...that actually rang pretty true to me. The Flash wasn't born to greatness, nor was he self-made. It wasn't a position and weapon he was given. It's just something that happened to him, and it makes sense that the character would spend a lot of time and energy coming to terms with it.
That's my point though. There are dozens of stories about "kid gets super speed" and JL sure told one of those. It's a really common power set at this point. What it didn't really tell was a story about the Flash and certainly not Barry Allen. Their comics fall apart when they forget this too, but its really the movies where we've repeatedly seen this fail.
Well, it seems clear that there was a struggle with JL regarding how deeply to dive into Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman. All three characters had more stuff shot...some of it even made it into trailers. Supposedly there was a lot of stuff involving Cyborg and his dad, which might have given you some of what you're asking for.
But was the JL film the place to explore that? I'm not sure. It wasn't until Age of Ultron that we learned more about what makes Black Widow and Hawkeye tick, and I didn't feel like those characters didn't work until then.
IIRC, James Wan said that he told Snyder not to go to deeply into Aquaman and Atlantis, so that he could properly explore them in the solo film. Maybe it would have helped to have solo films first for all characters, but Marvel made it work just fine without doing that.
LunarSol wrote: That's my point though. There are dozens of stories about "kid gets super speed" and JL sure told one of those. It's a really common power set at this point. What it didn't really tell was a story about the Flash and certainly not Barry Allen. Their comics fall apart when they forget this too, but its really the movies where we've repeatedly seen this fail.
It wasn;t a Flash movie though was it? They (IMO) told you enough and more importantly showed you enough on screen to get an idea of a character, who he was, why he was doing things etc.
I (and I doubt many others) have no idea who comic Barry Allen is or was and why he differs from The Wally bloke - but he seemed an engaging character on screen - and different enough from both Marvel film Quicksilvers - who are the only other speedsters i can think of in films?
LunarSol wrote: That's my point though. There are dozens of stories about "kid gets super speed" and JL sure told one of those. It's a really common power set at this point. What it didn't really tell was a story about the Flash and certainly not Barry Allen. Their comics fall apart when they forget this too, but its really the movies where we've repeatedly seen this fail.
It wasn;t a Flash movie though was it? They (IMO) told you enough and more importantly showed you enough on screen to get an idea of a character, who he was, why he was doing things etc.
I (and I doubt many others) have no idea who comic Barry Allen is or was and why he differs from The Wally bloke - but he seemed an engaging character on screen - and different enough from both Marvel film Quicksilvers - who are the only other speedsters i can think of in films?
And its fine that you guys dont know the differences between wally west and barry allen. Not a problem there. The issue is if you are trying to build a cinematic universe. Which dc was even if snyder wasnt, then you want to do the characters justice so that it fits together right and future directors can build on it.
But if barry allen has all the personality of wally west then where do they build towards? What do you do when wally shows up later? For the record, wally west was the flash from the justice league cartoon in the 90s. The one built off the bruce timm batman the animated series.
Lance845 wrote: The issue is if you are trying to build a cinematic universe.
Except not really. If you are trying to transliterate the comics into a cinematic universe then sure but if you are making the cinematic universe distinctive from the comic one there is no such need. There will be complaints and mock 'purity tests' no matter what one does so no reason to try and pander to a crowd that will never be happy no matter what. Of course this doesn't mean that what you come up with will be good either but if you're going to create something you might as well be hated for your vision and not another persons.
Lance845 wrote: The issue is if you are trying to build a cinematic universe.
Except not really. If you are trying to transliterate the comics into a cinematic universe then sure but if you are making the cinematic universe distinctive from the comic one there is no such need. There will be complaints and mock 'purity tests' no matter what one does so no reason to try and pander to a crowd that will never be happy no matter what. Of course this doesn't mean that what you come up with will be good either but if you're going to create something you might as well be hated for your vision and not another persons.
Except the MCU hasn't had that issue. Nobody did mock purity tests when Starlords dad was Ego the living planet instead of some alien royalty guy. The core elements of the character were kept in tact with the MCU and the details get shifted around to build something stronger.
Iron Man in the comics is very stoic. Very different from the RDJ version. The difference is there is no second person to have been Iron Man who had the RDJ personality traits. They didn't mash multiple characters together, or more specifically give the character one persons personality with the other persons name. Instead they took the reletively boring and weak elements of the the comic tonys personality and jazzed it up but kept the core bits about what made him Tony Stark and stayed true to his character. The person we saw in JL wasn't at all Barry Allen. It was Wally. It was Wally's insecurity. It was Wally's goofiness. None of Barry Allen's personality was there and thats what people who know the characters are bothered by.
Where the DC movies have missed the mark are the core elements of the characters. Barry Allen is Barry Allen in name and family but not in actual character. Batmans got his guns and his murder. Superman is a dour sad sack. Cyborg has nothing to do and no real personality (contrast the Teen Titans cartoon where he is bursting with personality). Wonderwoman has been treated great though! They have her core elements all falling into place and shes really well received. Aquaman is some kind of dude bro. His best moment in JL is when wonderowman has the lasso of truth on him and he starts to show his actual character. Hopefully we see more of that in the AM movie and less of the dude bro posturing thats just obnoxious.
I don't need or want the characters to be perfect transpositions of their comic book selves. The comics are OFTEN really stupid. I DO want to see the things that make that character great end up on screen and the fat get trimmed or changed to make them even stronger.
Most audience members don't know how Barry is or isn't in the comics. It's not an iconic thing. If anything, they're liable to be more familiar with the fast-talking, wise-cracking Flash from the JL cartoon. CW Barry is his own thing too.
"The things that make that character great" are incredibly subjective, and you're are all over the place with your examples. Cyborg in the comics originally was a moody kid with a ton of anger issues toward his dad. He's not the "BOOYAH" kid from the cartoon.
So which is it for you? Which single medium has the 'correct' representation? Or are you just choosing the versions of these very malleable characters that YOU like?
So which is it for you? Which single medium has the 'correct' representation? Or are you just choosing the versions of these very malleable characters that YOU like?
There is no correct representation. Most of these characters have been reimagined dozens of times as is. At the same time, you're adapting the source material because something from the source material resonates with people. A lot of Marvel's success hasn't come from literal translations, but they have shown a willingness to recognize the core appeal of a character and trust that it will resonate with larger audiences more or less unfiltered. Other studios (not just WB) seem to assume these things need a complete reimagining to work for a broader audiences and go out of their way to make something that only superficially resemble the version of something that was popular enough to be worth adapting in the first place.
What is Barry Allens character like in the comics?
For me and I think many others RDJ now defines Iron Man - the comic images and style now even look like him (though probably taller) plus the chemistry with GP as Pepper was and remains excellent - which apparently is different in the comics?
Tom Hiddlestone owns Loki - I can't really image him as anyone else. MR as Bruce Banner is simply excellent. Who is playing these characters and how is at least as important as who they comic characters are.
This is of course a bit of a danger for Marvel when they finally loose some of their top names - however they do seem to bringing plenty of good new blood in as well.
As i said before - I found all of the JL characters as engaging, in a Marvelesque way which is a high commendation
A lot of the Marvel stuff is more defined by the Ultimate comics than the mainstream stuff. Iron Man is kind of an odd case, because its probably the first time the character really resonated in any form. The most notable difference is that the comic character for quite a while was defined almost entirely by the "recovering alcoholic" angle whose solo adventures almost entirely revolved around "my technology in the wrong hands" stories. No small part of why RDJ's performance is iconic is because they got a famous recovering alcoholic to play a famous recovering alcoholic. It's far from a literal translation, but it takes the core ideas and gets them across in a way the comics never really managed.
As for Barry, I think the CW gets the character pretty well, at least a young version of him. He's a bit of a weird character to pin down, as kind of by definition, there wasn't a "post-crisis" version of him until fairly recently, meaning most of his characterization is fairly new in the era of comics essentially defined by stuff like Batman: Year One. That said, there's always been a lot of Peter Parker in him with the running joke being that the fastest man alive is chronically late. He's generally always been the more shy, patient and analytical speedster though, being a professional forensic scientist long before getting his powers.
I'd say for me the problem with the DC verse version of Flash being Barry Allen is how much I like the CW version of Barry Allen. So if they'd named him Wally West (much less invested in CW Wally) then I wouldn't constantly be comparing him to a character I really like and being let down.
Reality is that DC suffers from the CW doing such a good job with their first/second tier heroes that it puts massive pressure on the big guys in their universe and even more when they have to use someone that's had a previous or current tv version.
