This writeup is from THR via r/DCEU Leaks, but the announcement is official on James Gunn's Twitter:
Film News
Superman: Legacy.
According to the Hollywood Reporter, "the movie featuring the Man of Steel that Gunn is writing and may direct, although no commitments on that end have been made. While the two previous titles are meant to be “aperatifs,” in Safran’s words, Superman is the true kick off for the duo’s DCU plans. “It’s not an origin story,” Safran said. “It focuses on Superman balancing his Kryptonian heritage with his human upbringing. He is the embodiment of truth justice and the American way. He is kindness in a world that thinks that kindness as old-fashioned.” A release date of July 11, 2025 has been penciled in."
Lanterns.
Greg Berlanti’s long-in-the-works Green Lanterns TV series has been scrapped and the duo have parted ways with the longtime DC series steward. In its place will be a new take on the space cops with power rings. “Our vision for this is very much in the vein of True Detective,” Safran described. “It’s terrestrial-based.” It will feature prominent Lantern heroes Hal Jordan and John Stewart and is one of the most important shows they have in development. “This plays a really big role in leading into the main story we are telling across film and TV.”
The Authority.
A movie based on a team of superheroes with rather extreme methods of protecting the planet that first originated in the late 1990s under an influential imprint known as Wildstorm, run by artist and now head of DC publishing, Jim Lee. “One of the things of the DCU is that it’s not just a story of heroes and villains,” said Gunn. “Not every film and TV show is going to be about good guy vs. bad guy, giant things from the sky comes and good guy wins. There are white hats, black hats and grey hats.” Added Safran: “They are kinda like Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men. They know that you want them on the wall. Or at least they believe that.”
The Brave and the Bold.
“This is the introduction of the DCU Batman,” said Gunn. “Of Bruce Wayne and also introduces our favorite Robin, Damian Wayne, who is a little son of a bitch.” The movie will take inspiration from the now-classic Batman run written by Grant Morrison that introduced Batman to a son he never knew existed: a murderous tween raised by assassins. “It’s a very strange father-and-son story.”
The Batman Part II.
The Batman sequel: Pattinson will continue to portray the Dark Knight in at least one more crime saga movie directed by Matt Reeves. That movie, the executives revealed, will be released Oct. 3, 2025 and is being titled The Batman Part II.
Swamp Thing.
A horror film that promises to close out the first part of the first chapter.
Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow.
Taking its cues from the recent Tom King-written mini-series, this movie project promises to have a different take than what most think of when the idea of Superman’s cousin comes to mind. “We will see the difference between Superman, who was sent to Earth and raised by loving parents from the time he was an infant, versus Supergirl, raised on a rock, a chip off of Krypton, and who watched everyone around her die and be killed in terrible ways for the first 14 years of her life and then come to Earth. She is much more hardcore and not the Supergirl we’re used to.”
Television News Creature Commandos.
An animated seven episode series, written by Gunn, that is already in production. Originally a team of classic monsters assembled to fight Nazis, this is a modern take on the concept. The voice actors have yet to be cast but the executives are looking to find people who can voice the animated characters and also portray the live-action versions when the anti-heroes to show up in movies and shows.
Paradise Lost.
The duo describe this HBO Max series as a Game of Thrones-style drama set on the all-female island that is Wonder Woman’s birthplace, Themyscira, filled with political intrigue and scheming between power players. It takes place before the events of the Wonder Woman films.
Waller.
A spin-off of Gunn’s own HBO Max hit series, Peacemaker, Viola Davis will return as the ruthless and morally ambiguous head of a government task force. It is being written by Christal Henry (Watchmen) and Jeremy Carver, the creator of the Doom Patrol TV series.
Booster Gold.
An HBO Max series based on a unique and lower-tiered hero created in 1986. Safran said of the series, “It’s about a loser from the future who uses basic future technology to come back to today and pretend to be a superhero.” Gunn described it as “imposter syndrome as superhero.”
Lanterns.
Greg Berlanti’s long-in-the-works Green Lanterns TV series has been scrapped and the duo have parted ways with the longtime DC series steward. In its place will be a new take on the space cops with power rings. “Our vision for this is very much in the vein of True Detective,” Safran described. “It’s terrestrial-based.” It will feature prominent Lantern heroes Hal Jordan and John Stewart and is one of the most important shows they have in development. “This plays a really big role in leading into the main story we are telling across film and TV.”
I'm actually more excited for the Supergirl project than Superman. Tom King's book was tremendous. And that writeup doesn't quite capture the truth...it's not that she's a grimdark Supergirl, it's more that she's a survivor in ways that Clark isn't, and really just tough as nails even as she's a very caring person.
For Superman what I really wanted was someone super-passionate (pun intended) about the character to deliver what Reeves did with Batman and Villeneuve did with Dune. I'm sure Gunn will deliver a perfectly fine script, and his taste in comics is usually pretty good. But he already turned down WB with Superman years ago and said the Suicide Squad characters were more his kind of thing. And signs are pointing to him directing it as well, and I dunno about that. Of course he's capable, just like a pastry chef can still cook soups. But I want my pastry chef making pastries, you know?
Stuff like Creature Commandos and the Authority are really surprising...until you figure in that Gunn is the creative head.
I’ve no particular reason to believe this won’t happen.
Except. It’s the DCEU.
I’ll believe it when I see it - but I wish them well.
Well, you're wrong. This (other than The Batman 2) is the DCU. Basically a hard reboot of everything that's come before, and under completely different management.
Doesn't mean it'll succeed, of course. Talk about pressure on that Superman film.
Much as I enjoy Guardians of the Galaxy I am not looking forward to what is being suggested here.
Nicholson‘s character in A Few Good Men is not a “grey hat” or anti-hero. He is a coward who sacrifices his subordinates while surrounding himself with deception and delusions of glorious grandeur. He is at most a charismatic bully who has bought into his own BS for far too long. It amazes me how many people seem to think a good speech makes him anything more than a well spoken fraud. Despite his tough guy act his behavior is hardly in the finest traditions of a Marine.
Robin is a “a little son of a bitch”. Supergirl is hardcore. Creature Commandos… more anti-Heroes. Game of Thrones style politics forms the background of Wonder Woman's home. More Suicide Squad style edginess. Ugh.
I know I am an old man but seeing superheroes of my youth being portrayed like this… no. Not my thing. For those of you enjoying this kind of stuff, fair enough. Enjoy. But neither me nor Mrs. GG are excited about this news. Gunn has talent. We did not expect to enjoy all the Guardians of the Galaxy stuff but we did. That said, we understand the Guardians are actually anti-heroes in that that are unrepentant thieves. Now it sounds like the DCEU will be packed to the gills with edgy anti-heroes. Except for maybe Superman. I do not have high hopes for the Lanterns to be anything other than anti-heroes either at this point.
I'm a little skeptical about how this is all going to fit together in a shared universe. But there's nothing wrong with offering a slate with different tones to appeal to different people. The Authority is unabashedly a team of anti-heroes, and that may not be for you.
However, I think it's very reductive or even just wrong to file the Damian Wayne story arc or Woman of Tomorrow under 'edginess for the sake of edginess'. Damian Wayne is a interesting character because he contains some of *both* of his parents...and Bruce has to try to manage that as his father. Meanwhile, Supergirl is a hero in that story -- just one that's understandably carrying around some trauma that makes her different than Superman in a skirt.
Interesting characters tend to lead to interesting stories, and there's plenty of room between something that plays like a Saturday morning cartoon and a Snyder-style "turn it up to 11 and rip the knob off" approach.
gorgon wrote: I'm a little skeptical about how this is all going to fit together in a shared universe. But there's nothing wrong with offering a slate with different tones to appeal to different people. The Authority is unabashedly a team of anti-heroes, and that may not be for you.
Superman: Legacy.
According to the Hollywood Reporter, "the movie featuring the Man of Steel that Gunn is writing and may direct, although no commitments on that end have been made. While the two previous titles are meant to be “aperatifs,” in Safran’s words, Superman is the true kick off for the duo’s DCU plans. “It’s not an origin story,” Safran said. “It focuses on Superman balancing his Kryptonian heritage with his human upbringing. He is the embodiment of truth justice and the American way. He is kindness in a world that thinks that kindness as old-fashioned.” A release date of July 11, 2025 has been penciled in."
This sounds like we're getting an adaptation of "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way" which they could definitely tie directly into The Authority given The Elite were effectively stand ins for the anti-hero team in the first place.
gorgon wrote: I'm a little skeptical about how this is all going to fit together in a shared universe. But there's nothing wrong with offering a slate with different tones to appeal to different people. The Authority is unabashedly a team of anti-heroes, and that may not be for you.
Superman: Legacy.
According to the Hollywood Reporter, "the movie featuring the Man of Steel that Gunn is writing and may direct, although no commitments on that end have been made. While the two previous titles are meant to be “aperatifs,” in Safran’s words, Superman is the true kick off for the duo’s DCU plans. “It’s not an origin story,” Safran said. “It focuses on Superman balancing his Kryptonian heritage with his human upbringing. He is the embodiment of truth justice and the American way. He is kindness in a world that thinks that kindness as old-fashioned.” A release date of July 11, 2025 has been penciled in."
This sounds like we're getting an adaptation of "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way" which they could definitely tie directly into The Authority given The Elite were effectively stand ins for the anti-hero team in the first place.
Yeah, maybe...just doing away with the knockoffs.
Which was one of the funny things about the recent Superman/Authority/Warworld arc. Superman assembled a new Authority with similar archetypes to the original, but consisting of classic DC characters, former Authority members, and ersatz versions from the Elite.
On another note, I think Gunn's comments about the DCU being unified across movies, TV, animation, etc. -- and using the same actors -- has a lot to do with them going hard reboot. This way they can sign younger actors to long-term, studio-friendly deals with all the voice acting, etc. baked in. Although they're behaving as if the door is still open for Ezra Miller returning, I don't buy it for a minute. They just don't want to affect the Flash's box office by making it seem like a dead end. Same goes for Shazam and that cast albeit for different reasons. The kids will have aged out by 2026.
They'll announce Ezra's departure once the movie is out. It's not something they want to cloud its release.
As for the announcements, the Lantern one sounds the most interesting, the Themyscira one the least. Batman could be interesting. Supregirl sounds like it could be good, as long as they don't grimderp her.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Why? None of the people responsible for the DCEU are there anymore. Why do you immediately assume the worst?
Are the execs gone? Did they shuffle out all their writers and purge the rank & file of all wrong-thinkers that contributed to the current mess?
You put too much stock in a film studio shuffling a couple big names around for branding purposes, and over-estimate the length of their leashes.
Considering the projects I liked that this bunch has simply set on fire (like Young Justice), they're already burning their second chance, and I see no reason to have faith that they're magically a different organization. Most of this list looks exactly like the same grim and gritty crap that DC movies have been for the last decade.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Why? None of the people responsible for the DCEU are there anymore. Why do you immediately assume the worst?
Are the execs gone? Did they shuffle out all their writers and purge the rank & file of all wrong-thinkers that contributed to the current mess?
You put too much stock in a film studio shuffling a couple big names around for branding purposes, and over-estimate the length of their leashes.
Most of this list looks exactly like the same grim and gritty crap that DC movies have been for the last decade.
Well, actually there is a new CEO and the old execs are gone from the company or not in charge anymore. DC is now a separate studio led by James Gunn (the creative guy) and Peter Safran (the business guy), reporting into the new boss. They apparently have a new writing room that includes Drew Goddard, the former Daredevil showrunner for instance. So yes, this is a very different setup with different faces.
But why does it even matter if some of these offerings have darker tones than others? This isn't Saturday morning cartoons, and neither is the source material. I can walk into a comic shop and find more light-hearted titles and serious books and scary ones and adventure stories all from the same publisher. This is the same. Again, I have some doubts about some things, but one of the things Gunn said is that different tones and moods are needed, and he's right. The Batman movies should stay as they are and that shouldn't keep Booster Gold from being sillier and Swamp Thing from being scarier.
Have you read the comics and arcs that they're pulling from?
Voss wrote: Did they shuffle out all their writers and purge the rank & file of all wrong-thinkers that contributed to the current mess?
Also yes.
They created an entire new film division within WB. WB isn't making these films anymore, DC Studios is. It's a Marvel Studios situation, where they are part of Disney, rather than the previous system, where WBmade the DCEU films.
Voss wrote: You put too much stock in a film studio shuffling a couple big names around for branding purposes, and over-estimate the length of their leashes.
And you clearly don't pay much attention to the goings on in Hollywood. WB went through a major shakeup. Their new boss went through the entire company, lopping off heads with his mighty Axe of Zaslav and bringing on industry veterans (Alan Horn, FFS, a man who has retired... twice!) to get things right.
He created the DC Studio specifically do give the two people he chose to run it the level of freedom they need to create and stick to a plan (like what Kevin Feige had before Cheapskate took over, and now has again that Cheapskate is gone and the person put above Feige got the axe).
Voss wrote: Most of this list looks exactly like the same grim and gritty crap that DC movies have been for the last decade.
I don't know how you can say that, given that the people who made all that are gone.
As for Young Justice? Yeah. Tons of cartoons got cut at HBO Max, and none of them had anything to do with DC Studios. As Gunn said last week when it came to Titans/Doom Patrol, their cancellation was something decided upon before they came on board.
They created an entire new film division within WB. WB isn't making these films anymore, DC Studios is
I don't really care if they changed the name at the top of the org chart. That's a deniability move, not a real one until they can actually prove otherwise.
I don't know how you can say that, given that the people who made all that are gone.
Because a restructuring is almost never that simple, and is usually done more for appearances than real systemic change...
As Gunn said last week when it came to Titans/Doom Patrol, their cancellation was something decided upon before they came on board.
...and its always the prior occupant's fault. That would be Gunn's line no matter what.
gorgon wrote:Have you read the comics and arcs that they're pulling from?
Nope. I was never much one for DC comics. I know the major characters, of course, but I'll happily judge them on their movies and shows.
As a studio they need to prove themselves better, not just make some changes and pretend its all gonna be roses from here on out.
The Batman one is most disappointing to me. They want to cast younger but they are starting with Damian? So... Batman is going through like 4 other Robins by the time he's 30?
gorgon wrote:Have you read the comics and arcs that they're pulling from?
Nope. I was never much one for DC comics. I know the major characters, of course, but I'll happily judge them on their movies and shows.
As a studio they need to prove themselves better, not just make some changes and pretend its all gonna be roses from here on out.
All I can say is that Gunn is pulling from some pretty good runs. And that's what should matter most, just like he said in his remarks -- good stories. And of course the proof will be in the pudding. They just don't have any to show right now.
I sound like I'm reflexively defending the guy, when in reality I have some doubts (that are different than yours). But we'll see.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: The Batman one is most disappointing to me. They want to cast younger but they are starting with Damian? So... Batman is going through like 4 other Robins by the time he's 30?
Playing devil's advocate, a 37-year-old Bruce would be much younger than Keaton's Bruce and still a good bit younger than Affleck's 50-ish Bruce.
Let's assume he...met...Talia as a young, 25 year old Batman in this universe. That'd leave room for Damian to be 12 (think he was 10 in the comics in Son of Batman, but let's age him up a couple years so it's less silly in live action) and enough room for other Robins. Kids grow up fast, and comics have a distorted sense of time. If he adopts a 12-year-old Richard when he's 27, that'd give 6 years until the 18-year-old Nightwing goes on his way. Then at 33, Bruce adopts Jason. That really doesn't have to be more than a year of 'real' time until the Joker 'kills' him. So Bruce is 34. That allows a couple years for Tim, or maybe there is no Tim in this universe and a traumatized Bruce goes without a Robin for a few years until Damian arrives.
Maybe that's actually a better story. That this Bruce is directly coming off the Jason Todd Experience(TM) when Damian comes into his life, making his feelings about the sidekick concept extra-complicated.
I can see that and I understand it. And this next bit is just going to be me venting my personal preference.
Tim Drake is the best Robin. He is the only one who really GETS what Batmans mission is. He is the only one who takes on the full detective thing. And more then that, he's a better Batman than Batman because on top of mastering all of the stuff that makes Batman work he also has more compassion and none of his rage.
Whenever they make choices to cut Tim out the whole Batman ethos becomes a shallower place.
WB has regularly had some fantastic creative output. Lets not forget that they really made comic movies a thing in the first place with the original Batman, and the Dark Knight was an absolute milestone a couple months after the release of Iron Man. It was really only once they stopped doing what works and started chasing Marvel that things got really really bad. A big part of the issue is they are actually generally a creators studio and give directors a lot of freedom to do what they want and sink or swim on the results. That's fine for the most part, but completely fell apart once they committed to years of announced films without the opportunity to confirm if the core premise would resonate with fans.
LunarSol wrote: WB has regularly had some fantastic creative output. Lets not forget that they really made comic movies a thing in the first place with the original Batman, and the Dark Knight was an absolute milestone a couple months after the release of Iron Man. It was really only once they stopped doing what works and started chasing Marvel that things got really really bad. A big part of the issue is they are actually generally a creators studio and give directors a lot of freedom to do what they want and sink or swim on the results. That's fine for the most part, but completely fell apart once they committed to years of announced films without the opportunity to confirm if the core premise would resonate with fans.
And they’ve been capable of outstanding animated fare.
Picking nits, since I find The Dark Knight and the other two movies entertaining and usually don't complain about them, but isn't it a bit much to call the movie a milestone if the same Batman just one movie earlier flat out murders Raz al Ghul?
Seems like a pretty big miss to have Batman murder the guy. shrug and then go out of his way to not arrange a similar accident for the Joker. If he did that un-Batman thing and then had to deal with the consequences and come out better for it, OK. If he didn't murder anyone in the first place, OK. But the way it's presented it's not even the same Batman from movie to movie.
I am skeptical because making movies is hard, and it takes more than a director or a show runner to do; despite what the industry would have you believe.
A movie (or series, or franchise, or group of films, whatever the right term is) of this size is more likely to fail than to succeed in a way that I personally find appealing.
LunarSol wrote: WB has regularly had some fantastic creative output. Lets not forget that they really made comic movies a thing in the first place with the original Batman, and the Dark Knight was an absolute milestone a couple months after the release of Iron Man. It was really only once they stopped doing what works and started chasing Marvel that things got really really bad. A big part of the issue is they are actually generally a creators studio and give directors a lot of freedom to do what they want and sink or swim on the results. That's fine for the most part, but completely fell apart once they committed to years of announced films without the opportunity to confirm if the core premise would resonate with fans.
And that's where my doubts creep in. They're kinda doing it again, but maybe bigger...committing to years of films AND television AND animation AND video games all tying to a larger story. What if the Superman project only makes $500 mil? Does the big boss get immediately antsy? Man of Steel approached $700 mil and was thought to be a disappointment at WB, undoubtedly a real factor in the studio's lukewarm attitude toward Cavill. In retrospect that's pretty stupid and unfair ($650-700 mil in 2013 dollars is PDG for a reboot first installment and Cavill wasn't the issue), but there's nothing preventing the new CEO from behaving capriciously. Zaslev has a LOT riding on this.
Meanwhile, creatively they're trying to have their cake and eat it too...a massive, coherent universe that also gives creators across all those mediums room to flex. I suppose a difference from the Hamada years is that the writers and directors aren't coming to the studio with pitches. The stepping stones of the bigger story are being laid by Gunn and Safran, who are then hiring filmmakers for those projects. Which is a Marvel-style approach, although probably with fewer house style constraints within each property. Still, this seems like a helluva tightrope-walking act. No wonder no one wanted the job. Good luck, lol.
I think it helps a lot that DC Studios can be its own thing without WB proper getting involved. WB knows the movie-making business, but that skillset doesn't translate to serving cinematic universes and deep understanding of the comics IP. This was embodied in Walter Hamada, a smart executive who made some solid DC movies that were profitable...but failed to properly take care of the larger DC brand. Trying to have even a loose DC universe without a Superman is just dumb. "Replacing" him with Supergirl (his plan post-Flash) is dumb and showed his shallow understanding of the characters. Having a 70-year old Michael Keaton as the Batman for the main universe...fan-servicey fun for a moment before quickly becoming limiting and dumb. But I don't think Hamada ever understood that, and that's why even Gunn took some shots at him yesterday.
It will certainly be interesting going forward...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Geifer wrote: Picking nits, since I find The Dark Knight and the other two movies entertaining and usually don't complain about them, but isn't it a bit much to call the movie a milestone if the same Batman just one movie earlier flat out murders Raz al Ghul?
Seems like a pretty big miss to have Batman murder the guy. shrug and then go out of his way to not arrange a similar accident for the Joker. If he did that un-Batman thing and then had to deal with the consequences and come out better for it, OK. If he didn't murder anyone in the first place, OK. But the way it's presented it's not even the same Batman from movie to movie.
Remember that the Joker was supposed to be in the third installment. The issue was that the actor died and it was too soon to recast the role.
He also doesn't 'flat-out' murder Ra's. He allows him to die, but that also means he allowed him to potentially escape.
Geifer wrote: Picking nits, since I find The Dark Knight and the other two movies entertaining and usually don't complain about them, but isn't it a bit much to call the movie a milestone if the same Batman just one movie earlier flat out murders Raz al Ghul?
Seems like a pretty big miss to have Batman murder the guy. shrug and then go out of his way to not arrange a similar accident for the Joker. If he did that un-Batman thing and then had to deal with the consequences and come out better for it, OK. If he didn't murder anyone in the first place, OK. But the way it's presented it's not even the same Batman from movie to movie.
The Dark Knight was huge. To this day it still gets pushed as a film that should have gotten a best picture nomination. Culturally its impact was enormous and notably that impact had a lot to do with the fact that it didn't really connect that closely with Begins. I know a lot of people that love it and never saw its predecessor.
That's actually an important thing to remember about Man of Steel. The Dark Knight worked. Watchmen worked (mostly). Their actual attempt to copy Iron Man with Green Lantern, did not work. It wasn't until Avengers that Marvel truly exploded and at that point WB still felt like they were on top with Dark Knight Rises and Man of Steel being huge new takes on what they had every reason to believe.... worked. It was really only after those films stumbled and the MCU started turning into an unstoppable beast that we saw the increasing desperation that gave us the DCEU we got.
gorgon wrote: He also doesn't 'flat-out' murder Ra's. He allows him to die, but that also means he allowed him to potentially escape.
Batman provides an accomplice with the means to take out the bridge so as to be free to be on the train, gloats that he could save the guy but won't, and leaves him with the choice to jump to his death or race aboard the train to his death. The intent to see him perish in a train crash is there and Batman has every opportunity to save him and let the courts take care of a criminal instead.
gorgon wrote: He also doesn't 'flat-out' murder Ra's. He allows him to die, but that also means he allowed him to potentially escape.
Batman provides an accomplice with the means to take out the bridge so as to be free to be on the train, gloats that he could save the guy but won't, and leaves him with the choice to jump to his death or race aboard the train to his death. The intent to see him perish in a train crash is there and Batman has every opportunity to save him and let the courts take care of a criminal instead.
Nope, totally not murder.
I have a hard time applying real-world logic to the scenario. Ra's is a super villain ninja in a comic book movie. There's almost no reason to think that he WOULD die in that scenario, or at the very least stay dead. If anything, Bruce was being sloppy by giving him plenty of opportunity to make his super-villain escape.
gorgon wrote: He also doesn't 'flat-out' murder Ra's. He allows him to die, but that also means he allowed him to potentially escape.
Batman provides an accomplice with the means to take out the bridge so as to be free to be on the train, gloats that he could save the guy but won't, and leaves him with the choice to jump to his death or race aboard the train to his death. The intent to see him perish in a train crash is there and Batman has every opportunity to save him and let the courts take care of a criminal instead.
Nope, totally not murder.
Forget Ras. He flicks the bomb into a barrel of explosives and kills an entire building of people including the guy he refused to kill. He grabs 2 league of shadows guys and throws them off a building. He throws Harvey Dent off a building. And after telling catwoman no guns he gets into a weird helicopter tank and shoots rockets into Talia's truck and throws her off a bridge to her death as well.
You could nit pick over Ras all day. Bales Batman is only less murderous than Afleks.
Do you think The Authority will still have not-Superman and not-Batman as a gay couple? Will not-Iron Man kill an entire maternity ward to make sure one baby is killed? Will not-Captain America rape not-Superman again?
I've enjoyed Gunn's work but this announcement sounds like a train wreck of a DCU.
Ahtman wrote: Do you think The Authority will still have not-Superman and not-Batman as a gay couple? Will not-Iron Man kill an entire maternity ward to make sure one baby is killed? Will not-Captain America rape not-Superman again?
I've enjoyed Gunn's work but this announcement sounds like a train wreck of a DCU.
My guess is yes, no, and no. That it'll be a toned-down version that'll still contrast with (thereby elevating?) Superman and the other JL heroes, as LunarSol alluded. Who knows...maybe the Authority forms first, sparking the formation of the JL as a response. It's a pretty curious addition otherwise, although I thought they were a fun read.
Given the entire MCU is more or less built on a run of comics with a similar list of edgy nonsense, I'd argue there's probably a decent way to clean them up a bit while keeping what makes them compelling.
DC has had some awesome movies including for me THE iconic Batman film - The Tim Burton one but even that - like the much weaker Nolan one spawned increasingly poor sequals. keepinf quality has always been difficult.
The new annoucement - well I imagine the roadmap laid out will stand or fall on the quality of the firs few movies or the new guy will be gone...
Nothing really stood out as a must see - but then again thats the same for the current Marvel Phase.
Do you think The Authority will still have not-Superman and not-Batman as a gay couple?
Why would they not - it will play sooo well with the kids...so on brand etc.
Will not-Iron Man kill an entire maternity ward to make sure one baby is killed? Will not-Captain America rape not-Superman again? .
Probably not.
The Authority was the poster child for try hard edge writing.
Seems like another CGI fest, and I can't imagine they'll do it much justice given that they're about to wipe the slate clean. It doesn't help that the villain isn't likely to be very engaging, apparently it's Carapax the Indestructible Man? Even searching him up shows really little, so I doubt they'll do a good job of setting him up beyond a one-time bad guy.
James Gunn had a lot to draw together even beyond the films. And he was quick to concede that his previous projects at DC just added to the smorgasbord of content:
"We have the 'Arrowverse,' and even us, coming in with 'Suicide Squad,' 'Peacemaker,' and what is it exactly? And then all of sudden Bat-Mite's a real guy. So how can we take these things together and make them make sense and have them unified and have one real universe, one real world? And I think that we've gotten lucky with the next four movies, frankly, because we have 'Shazam!,' which leads into 'Flash,' which resets everything. Which then goes to 'Blue Beetle,' which is totally disconnected, he can totally be a part of the DCU."
Huh, interesting. I guess this gives them potential to look into The Reach at some point if they want a different alien invasion than Apokolips/Darkseid after the failure of Justice League.
Easy E wrote: DCU seems like it is totally floundering.
I have my concerns about Gunn's DCU, but it's weird to say it's floundering when there won't even be a real DCU film until 2025.
Gunn's point about Blue Beetle is that it could technically be grandfathered into the DCU because it's standalone and doesn't link into any of the old DCEU stuff. No Cavill, Gadot, Affleck, etc. Obviously it's not part of Gunn's official slate that we've seen so far, so any official DCU sequel is probably dependent on this one making a tidy profit.
Right, duh, Blue Beetle is DC… Anyways, as I said in the Marvel thread, it’s not the voice I’d have expected for Khaji-da, but the suit looks Amazing. I’m down for this.
The blue beetle trailer made me pause. What if DC grabbed some of these lesser known characters and teams and built up that way? I know that is partly their plan but this trailer was way more interesting than yet another batman/superman/JL centered story.
I almost certainly wouldn’t pay to see one of the big characters in a movie but this one at least makes me think about checking it out.
Mr Morden wrote: DC has had some awesome movies including for me THE iconic Batman film - The Tim Burton one but even that - like the much weaker Nolan one spawned increasingly poor sequals. keepinf quality has always been difficult.
The new annoucement - well I imagine the roadmap laid out will stand or fall on the quality of the firs few movies or the new guy will be gone...
Nothing really stood out as a must see - but then again thats the same for the current Marvel Phase.
Do you think The Authority will still have not-Superman and not-Batman as a gay couple?
Why would they not - it will play sooo well with the kids...so on brand etc.
Will not-Iron Man kill an entire maternity ward to make sure one baby is killed? Will not-Captain America rape not-Superman again? .
Probably not.
The Authority was the poster child for try hard edge writing.
That's Warren Ellis, and pretty much hiis entire catalogue. As die-hard of a fan of the Ultraverse as I was/am, it is still a chore to reread his stuff.
Saw the trailer for Flashpoint before Honor Among Thieves and noticed that the other Barry is wearing primarily yellow clothes and accessories (like the headphones) which makes me wonder if they are going to be having him as his own Reverse Flash of if that is Reverse Flash just messing with Barry. He's been know to mess with The Flash on occasion.
AduroT wrote: Right, duh, Blue Beetle is DC… Anyways, as I said in the Marvel thread, it’s not the voice I’d have expected for Khaji-da, but the suit looks Amazing. I’m down for this.
I am less concerned with the voice and more with the quips.
Watch Young Justice. The Scarab in that is perfect. A tactical computer that bluntly states plans of attack and odds of success. A dispassionate weapon AI that, on occasion, shows the affection it has built up for Jamie. I don't need the scarab to be crackin wise.
The Authority is a weird call given its a grim-derp mix of knock off heroes (although I like The Doctor being more time lord than Strange and Hawksmoore being Urban Swamp Thing)
And still no Tim Hunter or Tefe projects, for shame
Turnip Jedi wrote: The Authority is a weird call given its a grim-derp mix of knock off heroes (although I like The Doctor being more time lord than Strange and Hawksmoore being Urban Swamp Thing)
And still no Tim Hunter or Tefe projects, for shame
You have to remember that from an executive level, where no real interaction with the material exists outside of the interaction with the product, DC's highest points have always been Dark Knight Returns, Death of Superman, and the Watchmen. They've been trying to recreate those works without an appreciation for the environment that created them for decades, similar to Sony's endless push to make Venom happen.
Easy E wrote: DCU seems like it is totally floundering.
How can something that hasn't started yet be floundering?
The fact that it has to restart at all is a pretty obvious reason why it is floundering. How much did they spend on a group of movies that are irrelevant before they even launch? That seems like the definition of floundering but what do I know?
Turnip Jedi wrote: The Authority is a weird call given its a grim-derp mix of knock off heroes (although I like The Doctor being more time lord than Strange and Hawksmoore being Urban Swamp Thing)
And still no Tim Hunter or Tefe projects, for shame
You have to remember that from an executive level, where no real interaction with the material exists outside of the interaction with the product, DC's highest points have always been Dark Knight Returns, Death of Superman, and the Watchmen. They've been trying to recreate those works without an appreciation for the environment that created them for decades, similar to Sony's endless push to make Venom happen.
Fair point, plus we are nudging into the 30 years part of the Nostalgia Cycle hence The Boys, Preacher, Sandman etc although a lot of 90's stuff was just copying Miller or Moore without quite understanding why, I'm just crossing my fingers for a Marvel Man effort as its my preferred "supers break the world" over Warchmen (heck even shoehorn Winter into the MCU once Brie has had enough)
Easy E wrote: DCU seems like it is totally floundering.
How can something that hasn't started yet be floundering?
The fact that it has to restart at all is a pretty obvious reason why it is floundering. How much did they spend on a group of movies that are irrelevant before they even launch? That seems like the definition of floundering but what do I know?
Perhaps we misunderstood. The 'DCU' is James Gunn's new universe, which looks to be starting completely fresh. The old universe was generally referred to as the 'DCEU'.
The DCEU is essentially dead, with a few zombie projects still to come before the new DCU truly launches in 2025. We're well past 'floundering' with the DCEU, given the last several years including multiple rounds of executive firings, studio meddling, director shenanigans, mini reboots that led nowhere, etc. Add that all up and it has to be one of the bigger gakshows in Hollywood history.
Gunn is going in a very different direction with his universe, even if a couple of the announced projects seem Snyder-y. I mostly question the audience's appetite for a reboot and management's patience with a 10-year plan.
Turnip Jedi wrote: The Authority is a weird call given its a grim-derp mix of knock off heroes (although I like The Doctor being more time lord than Strange and Hawksmoore being Urban Swamp Thing)
And still no Tim Hunter or Tefe projects, for shame
You have to remember that from an executive level, where no real interaction with the material exists outside of the interaction with the product, DC's highest points have always been Dark Knight Returns, Death of Superman, and the Watchmen. They've been trying to recreate those works without an appreciation for the environment that created them for decades, similar to Sony's endless push to make Venom happen.
The more you imagine WB studio execs as a bunch of brainless, low attention span, SNL-style caricatures with zero understanding of the source material, the more the last decade makes sense. They were just grabbing onto trends and past successes and test scores and box office results with no real understanding of WHY things did and didn't work.
Supposedly the lowest testing characters in Whedon's JL movie were Batman and Superman. And I don't think it's a coincidence that they basically permanently sidelined Cavill after 2017. They almost certainly thought the problem was HIM, and after that maybe the character of Kal-El itself. Ergo, no Cavill or Kal-El movies in general, and multiple alt-Superman projects in the works. In fact, let's just swap Kal-El out for a female version, because that's all they thought Supergirl was. (They were never going to sideline Batman like that, because to them Batman = bank.)
Could go on and on. I don't like being like that, but if you dumb down your thinking, a lot of WB's actions and reactions kinda fall into place. Kevin Feige's genius isn't on the creative side, but in his ability to wrangle studio chuckleheads and get them to trust him.
Fair enough. I guess I don't see Gunn's DCU as a "re-boot" as much as a continuation of execs still not knowing what the hell they are doing.
I doubt they even let Gunn keep going past his first big movie, because it won't re-invent the superhero genre and bring HUGE bank. If it's anything less than record shattering, they will panic.
At least, that is my impression based on how Execs have handled the entire thing up to this point.
Easy E wrote: Fair enough. I guess I don't see Gunn's DCU as a "re-boot" as much as a continuation of execs still not knowing what the hell they are doing.
I doubt they even let Gunn keep going past his first big movie, because it won't re-invent the superhero genre and bring HUGE bank. If it's anything less than record shattering, they will panic.
At least, that is my impression based on how Execs have handled the entire thing up to this point.
I think that's a fair impression, yes. WB thought MoS was a disappointment because it did $670 million in 2013 dollars instead of a billion like Avengers. But that's a very nice showing for a first film in a reboot/new franchise, and the BO should have been compared to Batman Begins or Marvel's early phase 1 movies. Stay patient, make a few course corrections in the sequel, and they probably would have been rewarded. *shrug*
One difference now is that DC Studios is a thing, with bosses who get comic books and CBMs, and they don't have to navigate the WB studio chuckleheads anymore. Problem is that the new big boss doesn't seem like the patient type, and I agree it's going to be very interesting if Superman: Legacy ends up doing less in BO than MoS did.
The problem is that James Gunn is entirely the wrong person to be heading DC franchises. He can pay as much lip service as he wants, but he is entirely wrong for it.
I don't think Snyder's right for it either, but he's at least a better fit when he got to work unhindered.
With the way superhero movies are getting slaughtered at the box office, and even other blockbusters fizzling out like duds, I doubt any DC movie in the next two years will make MOS money. The quality of the film is almost irrelevant.
Kanluwen wrote: The problem is that James Gunn is entirely the wrong person to be heading DC franchises. He can pay as much lip service as he wants, but he is entirely wrong for it.
I don't think Snyder's right for it either, but he's at least a better fit when he got to work unhindered.
Could you elaborate a little on why you think Gunn is a bad fit for his role, Kan?
I'm unsure either way, so I'm wondering why you appear so ardent about it.
I think Gunn has a penchant for odd ball fringe characters. Which is good. Elevating the side bar weirdos to a major central and beloved role is great to get general audiences into the wider universe.
But what does he do with a Superman? With a Batman? With the Justice League?
Can you imagine a James Gunn Captain America movie? Avengers?
He isn't elevating weirdos to the forefront anymore. He has to establish the baseline foundation on which the entire thing will stand. Can he? We will see with that Superman movie he is writing and directing.
I think he's a solid choice to co-lead DC Studios. He's not my choice to be the Superman writer & director though. As I said before, I wanted someone to come in and Matt Reeves the thing.
There are rumors that when Gunn was talking up having Ben Affleck direct something for them a few months back, the movie Affleck wanted was Superman: Legacy and not Brave & The Bold. That might have been interesting.
But if true, something clearly happened between Gunn & Affleck, because Affleck's recent comments about directing in Gunn's DCU couldn't be any clearer. (Never ever.)
Lance845 wrote: I think Gunn has a penchant for odd ball fringe characters. Which is good. Elevating the side bar weirdos to a major central and beloved role is great to get general audiences into the wider universe.
But what does he do with a Superman? With a Batman? With the Justice League?
Can you imagine a James Gunn Captain America movie? Avengers?
He isn't elevating weirdos to the forefront anymore. He has to establish the baseline foundation on which the entire thing will stand. Can he? We will see with that Superman movie he is writing and directing.
So, like, SuperDickery era Superman, where Jimmy Olsen gets the power to eat gorillas or something?
DC movies would solve a bunch of problems by just throwing money at Geoff Johns- Stargirl was an awesome TV adaptation, MUCH better than Arrowverse IMHO.
DC movies would solve a bunch of problems by just throwing money at Geoff Johns- Stargirl was an awesome TV adaptation, MUCH better than Arrowverse IMHO.
I'm not sure what to think about Corenswet. He looks the part, but will he have the presence? I think Cavill really did have that component, where say Routh didn't.
Rachel Brosnahan as Lois seems like a home run hire though.
I find it highly amusing they fired Cavill to replace him with an actor who looks exactly like Cavill. He doesn't even look that much younger. It's wild.
creeping-deth87 wrote: I find it highly amusing they fired Cavill to replace him with an actor who looks exactly like Cavill. He doesn't even look that much younger. It's wild.
Three thoughts on this:
1) It's some sort of personal. "We like everything about Cavill - except Cavill himself...."
2) They have said that the new movie will focus on a younger Superman.
Gunn has ALSO made the distinction that Cavill was not fired - he just wasn't hired for this movie.
So maybe they are aiming to avoid CGI de-aging Cavill. Practical effect vs FX.
3) Perhaps Cavill has something going on that just won't work with their production schedule.
I think there are two main reasons that the old DCEU actors are getting replaced.
The first is about compensation and availability. The plan per Gunn is for a 10-year-long grand, cohesive storyline with the same actors portraying the same roles through film, TV and animation. Cavill, Affleck, Gadot, Momoa, etc. are all earning serious cash these days. If they were to do a JL 2, it might cost them $100 million+ just to pay them all. Plus, they might want to do other things with their careers than DC movies. People often underestimate how big of a factor availability is in Hollywood. So what the studio needs are younger, hungrier actors willing to sign on for something like that at a more reasonable wage. Basically the Marvel plan.
The other is about making a clean break from Zack Snyder and the old DCEU. I get it. But I think it's also a real risk, as actors really matter. And I think the DCEU JL actors were pretty good in those roles when the material wasn't letting them down. And I really do believe that if they'd put Henry Cavill in a more traditional, positive Superman story that audiences would have responded. gak, there seemed to be more passion out there for Cavill's announcement about his return than there was for actual DC films like Black Adam, Shazam 2, and Flash. People love a comeback story.
BUT AGAIN, I think there are very practical reasons why that just isn't going to work for the plan that they've laid out. Is it the right plan, though? To me, that's the big question.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Maybe they’re all sick of hearing about the Adeptus Custodes every minute the cameras aren’t rolling.
*IF* his 40K project ever gets off the ground, hopefully he retains some creative control. Because I feel like that dude probably spent half his time at his last two big gigs in conversations like "You want me to do what? But that's not how this character would......I mean, if you read the actual.......well, right but......oh god just never mind."
I don’t think it’s so surprising that the new superman actor looks a lot like Cavill as they were both cast because they look like superman.
But the idea that it’s telling a younger superman’s story and casting a younger superman doesn’t entirely convince me. The new actor is 10 years younger than Cavill, and it’s not unusual for actors to play characters younger than they are, and more interesting is that Man of Steel was released 10 years ago, so at the time of filming Cavill was actually younger than the new “younger” superman actor.
For those unaware, Screen Culture bills itself as the home for “beautiful, unique, and thought-provoking video projects” that the channel refers to as “concept trailers.” These so-called concept trailers, churned out at a rate of up to four per day, are made by “combining clips from existing productions and by adding original content like voiceovers, image overlays and other effects,” according to the outlet’s website.
Aash wrote: I don’t think it’s so surprising that the new superman actor looks a lot like Cavill as they were both cast because they look like superman.
But the idea that it’s telling a younger superman’s story and casting a younger superman doesn’t entirely convince me. The new actor is 10 years younger than Cavill, and it’s not unusual for actors to play characters younger than they are, and more interesting is that Man of Steel was released 10 years ago, so at the time of filming Cavill was actually younger than the new “younger” superman actor.
I assume its just that they want to get someone they can lock into a long term contract. Cavill has little reason not to charge them out the nose per film at this point.
Yeah, the price of the DCEU actors is a real issue for what they're trying to pull off. Momoa got like $15 mil for Aquaman, Gadot got $10 mil for WW2 and probably would have gotten more for WW3, Affleck is likely in the $15 mil range, Cavill was getting $1 mil/episode for Witcher and would probably be in 8 figures for a Superman film also.
Imagine what it would cost to get them all for another JL film, let alone the cost of all the little guest appearances and voice acting, etc that's part of the plan for the DCU. They need actors who will take very studio-friendly contracts.
Having said that, would a more standalone Superman film starring Cavill in a more positive, traditional Superman story have a chance to outearn a reboot with a new actor? I definitely think so...but the shared universe seems to be THE thing. Which to me feels a little like ignoring all the lessons they've learned over the past decade...?
Meh, can’t say that this appeals. Seems like nothing we haven’t seen before, essentially spider-man crossed with iron man, which is what the MCU version of Spider-Man has already been providing.
It even makes the classic boring super hero villain choice of having the villain being an evil version of the hero ( see Iron Man, Ant Man, Venom etc. )
Basically a hard reboot of everything that's come before, and under completely different management.
