Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Know what, that could actually be kinda fun. A bit too "Lethal Weapon" IN SPAAAAACCCEEEEE steretypical, but it could still be fun.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
I don't think it'd make any in-universe sense that the proto-venom concoction would allow normal humans to tussle with gods and demigods.

More importantly, your ending basically removes the entire birthright component to Diana's arc. There's no point to even making her the daughter of Zeus if she isn't going to confront her heritage and destiny. Personally, I think your ending would land flatter than Smallville, Kansas.

It's kind of lame when you achieve your destiny in episode one though.

Well, based on how the DCEU was being received up to that point, you can't blame the filmmakers for not planning for it to be a 3-movie tale.

There's talk that the sequel may be announced at Comic-Con, as two unnamed movies have been added to the DCEU schedule. One could be WW2, although there's also talk about the Batman movie, JL Dark, Shazam, GL Corps, SS2, Batgirl, etc. If I was WB, I'd be focusing on WW2, Batman, and a freakin' Man of Steel sequel over some of these lesser properties, but what do I know?

Wonder Woman was a major hit with everyone - to not do a sequal would indeed be .....odd.
Batman and Superman were good in the BvS movie (not as good as WW but hey) and I doubt were damaged by the whole Loopy Lex nonsense in that film

Supergirl could be good if they can ride the wave.

Guess alot depends on Justice League

I would have to disagree. I think B vs. S almost sank the entire franchise. If JL is not good I think that whole thing is done.

 Frazzled wrote:
I would have to disagree. I think B vs. S almost sank the entire franchise. If JL is not good I think that whole thing is done.

Did it really though? BvS made a lot of money. And the very next DC film was similarly attacked by critics and made a lot of money. I think both films also did well on Blu-Ray too. WW also didn't seem affected by any lingering DC 'taint'...it opened better than most forecasts predicted.

While I don't think audiences fully embraced either BvS or SS, I don't think the general public was as down on them as geek forums and comments sections would have you believe. There's a sizable segment of the public that probably doesn't even have a clear idea of which films are Marvel and which are DC. They're just superhero films to them.

To your point though, obviously WB decided that course corrections needed to be made. And given that so many of the films in development are Batman-related (Batman, Gotham City Sirens, Batgirl, Nightwing), it seems clear that their backup plan in the event of JL failing is for a Batman Extended Universe.

 gorgon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I would have to disagree. I think B vs. S almost sank the entire franchise. If JL is not good I think that whole thing is done.

Did it really though? BvS made a lot of money. And the very next DC film was similarly attacked by critics and made a lot of money. I think both films also did well on Blu-Ray too. WW also didn't seem affected by any lingering DC 'taint'...it opened better than most forecasts predicted.

While I don't think audiences fully embraced either BvS or SS, I don't think the general public was as down on them as geek forums and comments sections would have you believe. There's a sizable segment of the public that probably doesn't even have a clear idea of which films are Marvel and which are DC. They're just superhero films to them.

To your point though, obviously WB decided that course corrections needed to be made. And given that so many of the films in development are Batman-related (Batman, Gotham City Sirens, Batgirl, Nightwing), it seems clear that their backup plan in the event of JL failing is for a Batman Extended Universe.

Well said all around - and exalted!

 gorgon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I would have to disagree. I think B vs. S almost sank the entire franchise. If JL is not good I think that whole thing is done.

Did it really though? BvS made a lot of money. And the very next DC film was similarly attacked by critics and made a lot of money. I think both films also did well on Blu-Ray too. WW also didn't seem affected by any lingering DC 'taint'...it opened better than most forecasts predicted.

While I don't think audiences fully embraced either BvS or SS, I don't think the general public was as down on them as geek forums and comments sections would have you believe. There's a sizable segment of the public that probably doesn't even have a clear idea of which films are Marvel and which are DC. They're just superhero films to them.

To your point though, obviously WB decided that course corrections needed to be made. And given that so many of the films in development are Batman-related (Batman, Gotham City Sirens, Batgirl, Nightwing), it seems clear that their backup plan in the event of JL failing is for a Batman Extended Universe.

BvS was deeply flawed - the lead villain was a poor joke of a "character" with a worse plot, in contrast the hero's were great - esp WW>

Suicide Squad had so much promise and was enjoyable but again plot and pacing were not what it could have been.

Wonder Woman was fantastic up there with the top Marvel films. JL is hopefully in the same vein.

 gorgon wrote:
The talk is that it'll be 'Green Lantern Corps' and feature Hal Jordan and John Stewart in a 'buddy cop' kind of story.

The situation with the Rock is weird. It seems like they signed him for that role without a script or even firm-ish plans for a film in place. There was some recent rumorage that Black Adam isn't even in the current Shazam screenplay. Meanwhile projects like Batman, Batgirl, Gotham City Sirens, etc. at least have directors attached to them. Hard to know what's going on there.

Marlon Wayans got signed to play Robin in Batman Returns, but got cut. He still gets royalty cheques to this day. Batman is an 'any expense necessary this cannot fail' property for Warner Bros. They had a chance to sign a big name like the Rock, so they got him signed up. If they end up pissing that money away, well WB seems okay with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gorgon wrote:
Did it really though? BvS made a lot of money. And the very next DC film was similarly attacked by critics and made a lot of money. I think both films also did well on Blu-Ray too. WW also didn't seem affected by any lingering DC 'taint'...it opened better than most forecasts predicted.

Yep, if anything what the studios would have learned with BvS and SS is that these properties are big draws even when they stink. A franchise model that needs to keep producing good movies every single time is a dangerous business model, because you cannot guarantee quality - even the best directors will miss every so often. But a franchise that can break half a billion regularly even when the final product stinks is treasured by studios.

The only other issue would be if the failings of MoS, BvS and SS started dragging down subsequent movies. As you say that didn't happen. SS was really the surprising one to me, as after the last two movies I would have thought critics coming out and saying 'this one also sucks' would have had an impact, but it didn't.

To your point though, obviously WB decided that course corrections needed to be made. And given that so many of the films in development are Batman-related (Batman, Gotham City Sirens, Batgirl, Nightwing), it seems clear that their backup plan in the event of JL failing is for a Batman Extended Universe.

Interesting observation. I'd guess you're right. Either that or there's just more cinematic material among Batman's cast than the other DC properties.

I think part of it is that Batman related stories are easier to write passable stories. Even at its laziest you could do a mediocre Batman story by taking a plot from the 11ty billion CSI shows and add in a punch up at the beginning middle and end

That, and I think it's mostly that Batman has been money in the bank for WB going back decades.

So apparently Shazam will be the next DCEU film to shoot, probably for a 2019 release, and helmed by the director of Lights Out, Kung Fury, etc.

 gorgon wrote:
That, and I think it's mostly that Batman has been money in the bank for WB going back decades.

So apparently Shazam will be the next DCEU film to shoot, probably for a 2019 release, and helmed by the director of Lights Out, Kung Fury, etc.

Shazam is one of my favorite characters from DC because he has Superman like powers, but child-like vision of right and wrong. There are so many good morality tales you can tell with this set-up.

I think the perfect Shazam film would be one that heavily featured Superman as a mentor character, helping Billy master his powers, understand the responsibility that goes with them and ultimately coming away with a renewed faith in those around him. It gives people the inspiring, optimistic Superman they've been asking for, it has an established character in a supporting role for all the people who'd otherwise not bother with a film about a kid who says magic word to get god powers, and it provides an in if they ever want Shazam in the League in future.

The dynamic has a lot of potential; Superman teaches Shazam to be a better hero than the circumstances of this universe allowed himself to be, and Shazam shows Superman that he can still be the inspiring, hopeful figure that things like the death of Zod, destruction of Metropolis and showdown with Batman convinced him he couldn't.

Shazam written properly could be DC's equivalent of "Spider-man: Homecoming."

The character is essentially the definition of a childhood fantasy. A kid, an orphan no less, the most powerless becomes one of the most powerful heroes.

You then bring in the other kids and a substory of the child that doesn't have any trust and faith in people, ends up finding trust in the other children, just as HE finds people looking up to HIS alter ego.

Written properly, it'd be a great, classic, archetypical tale.

Although, I don't think Black Adam is the right 'villain' for the story. One of the most interesting things about Adam is that he exists in the shades of grey of the DC universe (EG everything he does is out of love, for his people, his home, his country, his lost love). That's more a tale for a more mature, nuanced Shazam, where he finds out the world isn't as simple as he used to believe it was. In other words, a sequel.

Instead, for a first film, I'd be looking for a more straight forward villain. I don't know enough about Shazam stories to say what kind. Some kind of monster type maybe, someone unambiguously 'bad' that he must find strength in himself and others to overcome.

Shazam has "Marvel formula" written all over it. But WB appears to be focusing on directors with vision these days, so who knows what his pitch was to the brass there.

And I think the end of BvS has already nicely set the table for Superman. The world now recognizes his sacrifice and selflessness, and he now fully embraces his duty through his love for Lois.

I think we're going to have a period of "evil Supes" first (perhaps enslaved by Darkseid).

Then likely involving Lois apparently being killed, or nearly killed.

However, Lois is saved at the last moment thanks to Batman (Lois.. she's the key).

Then we have a "power of love" situation that brings Superman back to the good guys, allowing him to wreck face and save the day.

I think that *was* the plan...basically the Injustice scenario. Snyder even seemed to be using a lot of Injustice design elements. It wouldn't surprise me if evil Supes would have been part of the cliffhanger back when there was going to be a part 1 and 2 to JL. But those plans were in place before BvS landed like it did and had everyone screaming about 'tone'. And the landscape has changed at WB since then, with Johns in charge and trumpeting positivity everywhere.

The guy who runs Batman-on-Film -- who has been privy to some things in the past -- is saying that the JL reshoots and the work that Whedon is doing/has done are more extensive than WB is letting on. And he recently said "unequivocally no" regarding evil Superman. We'll see if he's right.

gorgon wrote:Shazam has "Marvel formula" written all over it. But WB appears to be focusing on directors with vision these days, so who knows what his pitch was to the brass there.

And I think the end of BvS has already nicely set the table for Superman. The world now recognizes his sacrifice and selflessness, and he now fully embraces his duty through his love for Lois.

I hope you're right!

gorgon wrote:I think that *was* the plan...basically the Injustice scenario. Snyder even seemed to be using a lot of Injustice design elements. It wouldn't surprise me if evil Supes would have been part of the cliffhanger back when there was going to be a part 1 and 2 to JL. But those plans were in place before BvS landed like it did and had everyone screaming about 'tone'. And the landscape has changed at WB since then, with Johns in charge and trumpeting positivity everywhere.

The guy who runs Batman-on-Film -- who has been privy to some things in the past -- is saying that the JL reshoots and the work that Whedon is doing/has done are more extensive than WB is letting on. And he recently said "unequivocally no" regarding evil Superman. We'll see if he's right.

I really hope he's right too!

WW shows that you can indeed have a positive, hopeful hero and still make a good movie.

Evil Superman would be a bad idea this soon after BvS. Even with mind control or whatever, it undermines the ending of BvS where they should be doubling down on Hero Superman going forward. Not only is that the Superman everyone wants to see and that they've been building to for a while now, but it means that if they ever want to do the Injustice scenario down the line it'll be far more effective.

If we get an Evil Superman at some point, I would much rather it be the focus of its own Injustice style fall from grace for sort-of valid reasons than a cheap 'he's mind controlled so we can have a big fight scene' cop out. Of course, they could do both, but really, we've had enough hero fighting hero for a while now.

 Paradigm wrote:
Of course, they could do both, but really, we've had enough hero fighting hero for a while now.

Agreed!

There's plenty of really bad guys for the good guys to fight - and I'm not even sure Darkseid proper is going to be in much - if any - for the first Justice League movie...

Yeah, a few scenes of mulching Parademons by the dozen and a big final throwdown with Steppenwolf will be more than satisfactory even if Darkseid is only teased or appears briefly. So long as they can avoid the Thanos trap that I think Marvel have fallen into DS will make a great villain to up the stakes in a following JL movie.

Thanos will have been teased for 6 years by the time Infinity War rolls around, and at that point it'll be very hard for him to actually live up to that much hype on screen. But in theory, JL 1 and 2 will follow much more rapidly, so there's less chance of overegging the Supervillain hype pudding.