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.
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.”
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/01/31 18:33:45
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.”
That's pretty wild.
I'm still optimistic about Gunn's DCU.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/31 18:02:36
"Sometimes the only victory possible is to keep your opponent from winning." - The Emperor, from The Outcast Dead.
"Tell your gods we are coming for them, and that their realms will burn as ours did." -Thostos Bladestorm
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
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.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2023/02/01 02:19:04
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/01 03:10:06
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?
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/01 14:45:56
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.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
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.
Not you, Batman Ninja Awfulness. You sucked.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
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.
Nehekhara lives! Sort of!
Why is the rum always gone?
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.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/02/01 17:10:26
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.
Nope, totally not murder.
Nehekhara lives! Sort of!
Why is the rum always gone?
Basically a hard reboot of everything that's come before, and under completely different management.
