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.

With that narration, are they going full Deadpool here?

I really don't know how to react to this, it looks really good, but I've been hurt before...

Looks like Suicide Squad the Sequel, but with natural light.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well, it doesn’t look like it’s gonna suck.

Might actually be rather fun.

But then....The D.C. Pedigree. The sort of Pedigree that promises a well bred, fault free lovely soft slobbery Labradog, and instead delivers some god awful tiny little yapper with bulging eyes, a bad attitude and mange.

I don't know if this one will be good or not, but four out of their last five have been successful all around -- Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Shazam, Joker. Joker is up for big boy awards and racked up $1 bil in BO on a sub-$100 mil budget.

They can't seem to figure out what to do with Superman to save their lives (hint - just keep Cavill, give things a soft reboot and audiences will probably be fine with it), but otherwise they're doing fine.

 gorgon wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well, it doesn’t look like it’s gonna suck.

Might actually be rather fun.

But then....The D.C. Pedigree. The sort of Pedigree that promises a well bred, fault free lovely soft slobbery Labradog, and instead delivers some god awful tiny little yapper with bulging eyes, a bad attitude and mange.

I don't know if this one will be good or not, but four out of their last five have been successful all around -- Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Shazam, Joker. Joker is up for big boy awards and racked up $1 bil in BO on a sub-$100 mil budget.

They can't seem to figure out what to do with Superman to save their lives (hint - just keep Cavill, give things a soft reboot and audiences will probably be fine with it), but otherwise they're doing fine.

I don't think Cavil is interested. Also they need to do a hard reboot to a cohesive cinematic universe because a) Marvel ruined these disconnected movies for them. Audiences don't really want a independent Aquaman universe and Batman Universe and etc etc...and b) what they have produced so far is a universe where Batman is going to kill the joker and Harley Quinn the next time he sees them. With a gun, grenade, or by flipping a car into them at 100 mph using it like a wrecking ball with his Batmobile.

I agree that the problem with Superman is not Cavill, who is fine.

I'd like to see a Superman movie that actually is filled with, you know, hope. I want the boy scout. Superman isn't meant to be depressing, he's meant to be uplifting.

So far as Harley... I thought the original trailer was great but in retrospect was just excited to see the best bit of Suicide Squad getting a sequel. Now that has worn off and with each subsequent look, I think it's looked a little worse, and the ensemble picks seem odd and forced.

Still loving the hyena, of course. But wary of the rest. I'm still gonna go see it, obviously.

This looks like it'll be terribe but who knows?

Cass Cain seemed odd

 Lance845 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well, it doesn’t look like it’s gonna suck.

Might actually be rather fun.

But then....The D.C. Pedigree. The sort of Pedigree that promises a well bred, fault free lovely soft slobbery Labradog, and instead delivers some god awful tiny little yapper with bulging eyes, a bad attitude and mange.

I don't know if this one will be good or not, but four out of their last five have been successful all around -- Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Shazam, Joker. Joker is up for big boy awards and racked up $1 bil in BO on a sub-$100 mil budget.

They can't seem to figure out what to do with Superman to save their lives (hint - just keep Cavill, give things a soft reboot and audiences will probably be fine with it), but otherwise they're doing fine.

I don't think Cavil is interested. Also they need to do a hard reboot to a cohesive cinematic universe because a) Marvel ruined these disconnected movies for them. Audiences don't really want a independent Aquaman universe and Batman Universe and etc etc...and b) what they have produced so far is a universe where Batman is going to kill the joker and Harley Quinn the next time he sees them. With a gun, grenade, or by flipping a car into them at 100 mph using it like a wrecking ball with his Batmobile.

I much prefer the Angry Batman and Burtons batman - BOTH of whom are quite happy to use whatever is needed - be that batarangs or mini-guns /missiles.

Cavils Superman was also fine - just needed better writing but it appears he is busy killing monsters.

I prefer that if they are going to even attempt a cinematic universe its not one where batman kills off his rogues gallery every movie.

Marvel has also been pretty bad about just killing the villains but at least it makes sense that a green monster, a lunatic from another world, 2 assassins, a professional soldier or 2 or 3, some space mercenaries, and a rich ass hole who can buy his way out of any problem and was a arms dealer are the ones killing people.

DC has literal god like beings that dont need to hit a man at speeds not tacable with the human eye liquifying him on contact and batman is supposed to be good enough to stand beside the best of them.

Margrot Robbie probably loves the chance to ham it up. Especially after her role in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

My memory tells me that Margot Robbie WAS the reason this was made.. she loves herself as Harley, and wanted to continue the character.

I REALLY want to see this ..

 Lance845 wrote:
I prefer that if they are going to even attempt a cinematic universe its not one where batman kills off his rogues gallery every movie.

Marvel has also been pretty bad about just killing the villains but at least it makes sense that a green monster, a lunatic from another world, 2 assassins, a professional soldier or 2 or 3, some space mercenaries, and a rich ass hole who can buy his way out of any problem and was a arms dealer are the ones killing people.

Marvel... what?
Marvel was mostly bad about having villains. But often they don't get killed.
Red Skull- banished to space, now out of a job
Winter Soldier- converted
Captain Kree whathisname- sent home in shame
Loki- recurred, recurred, getting a series and coming back.

Iron Man films don't have anyone worthy of the title
Guardians of the Galaxy villains do tend to get killed, but they're also one-dimensional idiots bent on genocide for terrible reasons, so whatever.

 Lance845 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well, it doesn’t look like it’s gonna suck.

Might actually be rather fun.

But then....The D.C. Pedigree. The sort of Pedigree that promises a well bred, fault free lovely soft slobbery Labradog, and instead delivers some god awful tiny little yapper with bulging eyes, a bad attitude and mange.

I don't know if this one will be good or not, but four out of their last five have been successful all around -- Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Shazam, Joker. Joker is up for big boy awards and racked up $1 bil in BO on a sub-$100 mil budget.

They can't seem to figure out what to do with Superman to save their lives (hint - just keep Cavill, give things a soft reboot and audiences will probably be fine with it), but otherwise they're doing fine.

I don't think Cavil is interested. Also they need to do a hard reboot to a cohesive cinematic universe because a) Marvel ruined these disconnected movies for them. Audiences don't really want a independent Aquaman universe and Batman Universe and etc etc...and b) what they have produced so far is a universe where Batman is going to kill the joker and Harley Quinn the next time he sees them. With a gun, grenade, or by flipping a car into them at 100 mph using it like a wrecking ball with his Batmobile.

If Cavill doesn't want it, he's doing the worst job ever of showing it, LOL. The guy is constantly talking about the role and insisting he's not done, presumably to get the fans on his side and force WB to keep him.

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/henry-cavill-superman-role-dc-movies-1203414869/
https://www.etonline.com/jason-momoa-says-henry-cavill-is-absolutely-not-leaving-superman-character-exclusive-115758

It's WB that isn't interested. Cavill and Chris McQuarrie (Mission: Impossible) apparently pitched something to WB early last year and they passed. I think he's done, unless The Rock can force WB's hand. They have the same agent, and Johnson and his people keep talking about wanting Black Adam to fight Superman.

https://movieweb.com/black-adam-movie-superman-henry-cavill/

Meanwhile, rumors are that JJ Abrams will be working on a Superman film...and may be recasting. Who knows.

Regarding cinematic universes...if a studio can make it happen, great. But who other than Marvel has actually pulled it off? Even the mighty Star Wars franchise has had some bumps, and that's at the same studio! I think audiences just want good movies, and if WB can deliver that better in the form of separate universes then it's a no-brainer to just walk that path.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 porkuslime wrote:
My memory tells me that Margot Robbie WAS the reason this was made.. she loves herself as Harley, and wanted to continue the character.

IIRC, her character tested really, really well with audiences in SS, a stinker of a movie otherwise. So the interest was mutual. Note how the rest of the SS property is getting a reboot.

Voss wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I prefer that if they are going to even attempt a cinematic universe its not one where batman kills off his rogues gallery every movie.

Marvel has also been pretty bad about just killing the villains but at least it makes sense that a green monster, a lunatic from another world, 2 assassins, a professional soldier or 2 or 3, some space mercenaries, and a rich ass hole who can buy his way out of any problem and was a arms dealer are the ones killing people.

Marvel... what?
Marvel was mostly bad about having villains. But often they don't get killed.
Red Skull- banished to space, now out of a job
Winter Soldier- converted
Captain Kree whathisname- sent home in shame
Loki- recurred, recurred, getting a series and coming back.

Iron Man films don't have anyone worthy of the title
Guardians of the Galaxy villains do tend to get killed, but they're also one-dimensional idiots bent on genocide for terrible reasons, so whatever.

Confirmed dead mcu villains who have long standing comics history.

Iron monger
Whiplash
Baron strucker
Crossbones
Ego the living planet
Taserface
Malekith
Kurse
The destroyer armor
Laufi the frost giant king
Ultron
Killmonger
Klaw
Dr minerva
Ronan the acuser
Hela (maybe?)
Surtur (maybe?)
The collector (probably)
Thanos
All 4 of the black order.

Others.

The list of dead is much longer than the list of alive.

In comics time doesn't really move like irl so it is easier, and necessary, to make even mediocre villains recurring characters. Most on that list weren't really worth more than one movie with the possible exception of Ultron. I'm not really counting Thanos as he was a recurring villain and even had one movie where he was essentially the main character.

Is taser face REALLY worth mentioning on that list?

 Ouze wrote:
I agree that the problem with Superman is not Cavill, who is fine.

I'd like to see a Superman movie that actually is filled with, you know, hope. I want the boy scout. Superman isn't meant to be depressing, he's meant to be uplifting.

I'm of the opinion that Superman is a boring character. His secret identity, Clark Kent, is what really gives him flair. The dynamic of the superhuman who can do anything, and the the every man content with being a mild mannered farm boy. That's that makes the character human and that's what the recent films have all failed to bring to life.

 Ouze wrote:
I agree that the problem with Superman is not Cavill, who is fine.

I'd like to see a Superman movie that actually is filled with, you know, hope. I want the boy scout. Superman isn't meant to be depressing, he's meant to be uplifting.

Agreed. Last month Neil Gaiman had the perfect response to a news report about how DC Films is having problems making Superman "relevant": Gaiman said "You don’t make it relevant. You make it inspiring."
I feel ditching the John Williams music was just another sign of how DC doesn't understand that.

I really quite like the Hans Zimmer music, to be honest. I don't think that's to blame either.

- Even then, it's the same problem, kind of. People focus on the big exciting themes, but the heart of Zimmers music is "This is Clark Kent" and "What are you going to do when you're not saving the world?"

The Zimmer theme is terrific. And more representative of the modern Superman IMO in that it gives us the quiet Kansas farmboy at the beginning with the piano notes and builds into the superheroic. Williams’ theme is classic but all bluster, befitting the Bronze Age Superman of the era, in which ‘Clark Kent’ was a lie and didn’t really exist.

Honestly I think it’s very very weird to expect that new Superman films use the same music from films 3 or 4 decades and 1.5 reboots ago (Returns is the .5). I mean, the comic books don’t play that theme when you open them, right? The character is a little bigger than that theme.

The real mistake that WB made was not following up MoS with a strong, more hopeful sequel with a grown-a$$ Superman as the end of MoS promised.

my feeling on birds of oprey from what I'm seen so far is it's very... 1990s super hero. in other words it reminds me of the odd super hero films we saw in the 90s where (batman aside) they seemed strangely shy about putting the character in their super suits. and well.. those 90s movies sucks so unless BoP starts getting amazing reviews? I'll pass on this one

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I agree that the problem with Superman is not Cavill, who is fine.

I'd like to see a Superman movie that actually is filled with, you know, hope. I want the boy scout. Superman isn't meant to be depressing, he's meant to be uplifting.

I'm of the opinion that Superman is a boring character. His secret identity, Clark Kent, is what really gives him flair. The dynamic of the superhuman who can do anything, and the the every man content with being a mild mannered farm boy. That's that makes the character human and that's what the recent films have all failed to bring to life.

This!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gorgon wrote:

The real mistake that WB made was not following up MoS with a strong, more hopeful sequel with a grown-a$$ Superman as the end of MoS promised.

Someone who's interest in comics was birthed in stuff like Watchmen and DKR was never going to do this.

Looks more like a solo Harliquin movie but thats fine as Margot is always a barrel of fun.

But she musn't be too overconfident...because...Ewan could once again have the high ground!

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I agree that the problem with Superman is not Cavill, who is fine.

I'd like to see a Superman movie that actually is filled with, you know, hope. I want the boy scout. Superman isn't meant to be depressing, he's meant to be uplifting.

I'm of the opinion that Superman is a boring character. His secret identity, Clark Kent, is what really gives him flair. The dynamic of the superhuman who can do anything, and the the every man content with being a mild mannered farm boy. That's that makes the character human and that's what the recent films have all failed to bring to life.

I always felt this about the Nolan/Bale films, particularly Batman Begins; for me Bale’s Batman was very average, but I think he was the best Bruce Wayne we’ve had on screen*. A lot of the other films treat Bruce as a thing they have to put up with as little as possible to get to the action, but this is the guy who chose to give up a life of immeasurable wealth and comfort in order to hand out what he sees as justice on the streets. That is what makes the character interesting. In fact, now I think about it, both Batman and Superman have that theme of giving up essentially unlimited power for what you think is right, just in opposite directions?

* Noting that I haven’t watched the very well talked about animated series, just the various films (and the Batman, Adam West )

If you've not watched Batman the Animated series you don't know Batman that said, they didn't really focus toooo much on Bruce Wayne, he was always sort of in the background, but we saw little things that really if you where paying attention brought the guy to life. between the voice acting (Bruce Wayne and Batman spoke very differantly if you've got Arkham city you can see it there) and even the animation they did a great job of enforcing that Bruce Wayne was an act, even the body language in animation sent that apart. you can see it great in "the night of the Ninja" where Batman as bruce Wayne is captured alongside a reporter, the Ninja basicly is doing it due to revenge over something Bruce did while in Japan learning martial arts, he keeps up his cover while the reporter is there, but the minute the reporter is unable to see what happens and Bruce perpares to REALLY fight, the "mask" drops his voice, becomes Batman's voice, and his body language changes etc. it's really well done. (even though the episode is, TBH a bit cheesy with the martial arts tropes otherwise)

There is nothing especially interesting about Bruce Wayne because Bruce Wayne is the mask. Batman has to pretend to be Bruce. In actuality he REALLY is Batman.

Superman is the opposite. Superman REALLY is Clark Kent. Down to earth country boy with a good work ethic and a good sense of right and wrong. When he puts on the suit and is Superman he knows that he is a symbol and has to behave as such. So there are things Clark would want to do. Ways he would want to help, that he knows he can't because Superman has to respect certain boundaries.

Superman is the costume Clark Kent wears to attempt to do the most good in the long run.

Bruce Wayne is the costume Batman wears so that he can keep pursuing his mission.

 Jadenim wrote:
(and the Batman, Adam West )

Preach it my brother!

As for this movie, I thought Suicide Squad was all ready getting a re-boot? Is this it?

No, this is a completely different film from Suicide Squad.

Suicide Squad 2 is being directed by James Gunn of Guardians of the Galaxy fame.

This Harley Quinn movie is ostensibly a Birds of Prey film.

 Jadenim wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I agree that the problem with Superman is not Cavill, who is fine.

I'd like to see a Superman movie that actually is filled with, you know, hope. I want the boy scout. Superman isn't meant to be depressing, he's meant to be uplifting.

I'm of the opinion that Superman is a boring character. His secret identity, Clark Kent, is what really gives him flair. The dynamic of the superhuman who can do anything, and the the every man content with being a mild mannered farm boy. That's that makes the character human and that's what the recent films have all failed to bring to life.

I always felt this about the Nolan/Bale films, particularly Batman Begins; for me Bale’s Batman was very average, but I think he was the best Bruce Wayne we’ve had on screen*. A lot of the other films treat Bruce as a thing they have to put up with as little as possible to get to the action, but this is the guy who chose to give up a life of immeasurable wealth and comfort in order to hand out what he sees as justice on the streets. That is what makes the character interesting. In fact, now I think about it, both Batman and Superman have that theme of giving up essentially unlimited power for what you think is right, just in opposite directions?

* Noting that I haven’t watched the very well talked about animated series, just the various films (and the Batman, Adam West )

As usual for me the Burton Batman film did this better and before - Michael Keaton was an excellent Bruce Wayne AND Batman.

And of course the Lego Batman movie




new trailer looks like fun

 Lance845 wrote:
There is nothing especially interesting about Bruce Wayne because Bruce Wayne is the mask. Batman has to pretend to be Bruce. In actuality he REALLY is Batman.

true but I think whats being said is that with most prior Batman movies this meant Bruce Wayne was just sort of.... there.
The Dark Knight trilogy was the first time in the movies they really played with this and explored some of the implications. Like Bruce really can't make many friends even if he wanted to because his Bruce Wayne act is something that would no doubt disgust the kind of people whose company he'd actually find worthwhile

Bruce can be as interesting as Batman, the problem is that most of Bruce Wayne's interesting aspects will be more talking and sly double deals and such. Ergo lots of words and not much action to really present on the TV nor in a comic. So its much easier to focus on Batman who is far more about action and cool fights and combat moves.