The short-lived DC Cinematic Universe may be done

[Hawki]

I don't understand how anyone can say that the DC cinematic universe was "short-lived."

They've had 5 movies already come out, 1 which has finished production and is ready to be released, 1 that's almost finished, and 1 currently filming.

8 movies is not short-lived by any means, and I'm frankly astounded that it's lasted as long as it did considering the quality of the movies.

Y'know, it just occurred to me - the MCU celebrated its 10th anniversary this year. The DCEU will be celebrating its 5th. By the time WW2 is released (which is the last DCEU film that will definitively be released, iffy about the others), that means it'll have released 9 films over 9 years. Less than Marvel's 23 films over 11 years, but still...

 

[Natemans]

. They used to be awesome, edgy, not hesitating to pull punches and challenge the audiance.

Wanton violence and explosions do not challenge the audience, it's oversaturated to the point of mediocrity.

And Goofy Humor isn't?

There's nothing wrong with having humor in a film

. They used to be awesome, edgy, not hesitating to pull punches and challenge the audiance.

Wanton violence and explosions do not challenge the audience, it's oversaturated to the point of mediocrity.

And Goofy Humor isn't?

GOTG2 deals with abusive families, and dealing with the trauma caused by it, has a character afraid of abandonment slowly realising that his companions all really love him and won't abandon him.

Ragnarok has thor choose to sacrifice his homeland for the good of his people and the universe as a whole.

Black Panther talks about the consequences of colonialism and slavery, the dangers of unthinking isolationism and blind adherence to tradition.

All three talk about men coming to see awe insiring fathers they adore/adored for the flawed people they are, and dealing with their mistakes/evil.

All three have lashings of goofy humour, but are all deeper, more meaningful and much more mature than the DCEU's shallow gritty grimness.

Using Guardians of the Galaxy as a point of defence?, the same movies that shows me this right after Groot's death:


And Black Panther showed nothing about Colonialism and Slavery. I watch the movie, whatever messages that movie had was barely present. You do not see Non-Wakandan Black People getting oppressed at all.

There is no deeper meaning. Its all just popcorn entertainment.

I disagree heavily with that completely. The themes and deeper meaning is there. Just because a film has a few moments of humor doesn't automatically mean there is no depth.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

And Black Panther showed nothing about Colonialism and Slavery. I watch the movie, whatever messages that movie had was barely present. You do not see Non-Wakandan Black People getting oppressed at all.

There is no deeper meaning. Its all just popcorn entertainment.

...what? The film opens with footage of the Rodney King Riots. Killmonger's whole deal is that Wakanda could have done something during the slave trade years to prevent the deaths of millions, and could still be doing something these days to help the poor and oppressed. Hell, T'Challa even agrees with him on that, they only differ on motives.
For someone who claims to want films with deeper meaning behind them, they seem to go over your head when you get them

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

And Black Panther showed nothing about Colonialism and Slavery. I watch the movie, whatever messages that movie had was barely present. You do not see Non-Wakandan Black People getting oppressed at all.

There is no deeper meaning. Its all just popcorn entertainment.

...what? The film opens with footage of the Rodney King Riots. Killmonger's whole deal is that Wakanda could have done something during the slave trade years to prevent the deaths of millions, and could still be doing something these days to help the poor and oppressed. Hell, T'Challa even agrees with him on that, they only differ on motives.
For someone who claims to want films with deeper meaning behind them, they seem to go over your head when you get them

IMO they didn't show enough as I said.

Heck they should have shown Killmonger's childhood and teen years on the streets full on Boyz in the Hood style. Show me the struggles the black community went through in South Central LA. Show me the suffering of black slavery, show me the death of Martin Luther King Jr.

Nope we are only told about it.

 

[WindKnight]

Sam, I think you need to chill out a bit.

I kind of get where you're coming from, you love stuff that is inherently at least a little bit childish and ridiculous. No big, no foul, a lot of stuff I love is the same (my fave manga is about teenage girls travelling to a fantasy lands and getting a strange marshmallow rabbit thingy as a guide, and awakening giant robots to rescue a princess).

But it feels like you at a point in you life when you want to be seen as mature, and thus, want the stuff to love to be/be seen as mature, and you've jumped immediately to rejecting anything remotely childish and 'fun'... and that isn't mature.

Spoiler: very appropriate extra credits episode here

I think you are approaching this all from the wrong angle. Grit doesn't make mature. Dourness doesn't make mature. Humour doesn't take away maturity. You need to chill out and stop desperately wanting everyone to see you and what you love as SERIOUS and GROWN UP, or ultimately you'll get neither.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Sam, I think you need to chill out a bit.

I kind of get where you're coming from, you love stuff that is inherently at least a little bit childish and ridiculous. No big, no foul, a lot of stuff I love is the same (my fave manga is about teenage girls travelling to a fantasy lands and getting a strange marshmallow rabbit thingy as a guide, and awakening giant robots to rescue a princess).

But it feels like you at a point in you life when you want to be seen as mature, and thus, want the stuff to love to be/be seen as mature, and you've jumped immediately to rejecting anything remotely childish and 'fun'... and that isn't mature.

Spoiler: very appropriate extra credits episode here

I think you are approaching this all from the wrong angle. Grit doesn't make mature. Dourness doesn't make mature. Humour doesn't take away maturity. You need to chill out and stop desperately wanting everyone to see you and what you love as SERIOUS and GROWN UP, or ultimately you'll get neither.

I will get neither regardless of my thoughts and tastes since clearly I have no power in all of this. I am just a guy with interests and tastes that has developed over the years of my life to what I have been exposed to growing up.

When it comes to Superheroes I was exposed more to arguably "Mature" versions instead of the completely childish camp of the Silver Age.

I had Batman The Animated Series. X-Men and Spiderman. Superman the Animated Series (and the 1940s cartoon), Justice League, and Teen Titans. And the pre MCU Superhero movies growing.

The best stories and episodes I took away from Teen Titans were the darker and adult episodes. Robin being Slade's apprentice, Terra's betrayal of the Titans, Raven's destiny as the bringer of the End Times. That give me a much more deeper lasting impression than the more goofy episodes of Teen Titans, of course I did laugh at them as a kid, who didn't? But if I owned the DVDs to Teen Titans 2003, I would have been re-watching the more serious and epic episodes more often.

Also this documentary forever painted my perception of what Superheroes should be:


Honestly has anyone here ever watched this on History channel?

 

[Agema]

Personally, I've reached super hero movie burnout in the past couple of years. I've seen all but the latest DCCU, MCU, and X-Men movies, and in the end most of them are merely passable, predictable, mediocre entertainment at best.

Yep. They remind me of one my favourite quotes of all time (which was originally about Westerns), to paraphrase:

"I wouldn't say that if you've seen one you've seen them all, but when you've seen them all, you've only seen one."

I actually wonder with the Marvel Universe, does it take real directing skill for so many different directors to produce movies so indistinguishable in style, or are the directors just empty names carrying out on a well-worked studio formula?

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

And what about Green Lantern? That movie had nothing to do with Snyder at all. Infact the director of that movie is the same guy that did Goldeneye and the first Zorro movie.

No one claimed Snyder had a monopoly on making bad films. Green Lantern wasn't in continuity with any other DC film, not Nolan's Dark Knight films and certainly not the "DCCU". It was so bad that even Ryan Reynolds used Deadpool's time travel ability in DP2's mid-credit scene to erase it from history.

On a different subject, the Green Lantern will be one of DC's hardest heroes to make work in a movie. Outside of comic fandom, the entire character concept is so utterly absurd that telling the movie-going public about him will put anyone off ever going.
"So he can make any shape he wants out of a magic ring he has."
"A magic ring?"
"Yes, magic ring, but it can run out of energy so they have to recharge it. And everything he makes is green. There are like different coloured magic rings."
"Different colours?"
"Yes, and the green ones are like weak to yellow."
"His weakness is yellow?"

There is no way to play that as anything other than Guardians of the Galaxy level of camp. It's basically 2 hours of Wile E. Coyote with Acme gizmos.

Personally, BVS and JL were so bad that I wouldn't pay to watch another DC movie. Been burned too many times. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me (counts on his fingers) 3 or 4 times, shame on...you can't get fooled again.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

And what about Green Lantern? That movie had nothing to do with Snyder at all. Infact the director of that movie is the same guy that did Goldeneye and the first Zorro movie.

No one claimed Snyder had a monopoly on making bad films. Green Lantern wasn't in continuity with any other DC film, not Nolan's Dark Knight films and certainly not the "DCCU". It was so bad that even Ryan Reynolds used Deadpool's time travel ability in DP2's mid-credit scene to erase it from history.

On a different subject, the Green Lantern will be one of DC's hardest heroes to make work in a movie. Outside of comic fandom, the entire character concept is so utterly absurd that telling the movie-going public about him will put anyone off ever going.
"So he can make any shape he wants out of a magic ring he has."
"A magic ring?"
"Yes, magic ring, but it can run out of energy so they have to recharge it. And everything he makes is green. There are like different coloured magic rings."
"Different colours?"
"Yes, and the green ones are like weak to yellow."
"His weakness is yellow?"

There is no way to play that as anything other than Guardians of the Galaxy level of camp. It's basically 2 hours of Wile E. Coyote with Acme gizmos.

Personally, BVS and JL were so bad that I wouldn't pay to watch another DC movie. Been burned too many times. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me (counts on his fingers) 3 or 4 times, shame on...you can't get fooled again.

What I am saying is what makes you think DC can make good movies without Snyder when they have proven they can fuck up with movies like Green Lantern?

 

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

Ah, the DCEU. You will not be missed. I really hated Man of Steel. I like the Big Blue Boy Scout. I like having a Superman that does the right thing, smiles for the people, charasmatic, friendly, and helpful. Always putting the safety of others before his own.
Zack Snyder gave me all of the power, but none of the hope that Big Blue represents.

And boy, oh boy did he butcher Batman. "He has the power to wipe out the entire human race, and if we believe there's even a one percent chance that he is our enemy we have to take it as an absolute certainty... and we have to destroy him." What a god damn psychopath! He took all of Batman's worst qualities and bumped them up to eleven. The problem with the DCEU is that it was completely devoid of hope. Zack Snyder consistently left me with the feeling of dread. That things were only going to get worse. There is no light at the end of this tunnel, because Snyder is averse to sunlight.

Snips

The obvious solution would be to just not explain all of that. "Hal Jordan finds an device in an alien wreckage that allows him to fly and create whatever he imagines." The rest, his weaknesses and strengths, shouldn't have to be outright explained to the audience. The film should be able to convey most of that without outright saying anything. They wouldn't even need to explain the Yellow or Red lanterns until they appear. But I'd prefer getting villains that aren't lantern users for GL's movies, just to avoid Marvel's mirror fights problem.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

First film, maybe. After that? No. Look at Empire, which basically has two separate plots going on for the majority of its runtime, or Last Jedi which has three (Force Awakens is similar in being ensemble).

Let's not forget Return of the Jedi which has two separate plots, the Jabba's palace plot and then the Death Star plot, with the latter having 3 different threads going on at once (Luke's confrontation of the Emperor, the space battle and the ground battle). Having two simultaneous plots is also a thing in both Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith (with Obi-wan and Anakin having two separate plot branches in both).

X-men is borderline, and I can see it going either way with the materiel, unfortunately the only reoccurring Xman has been Wolverine.

Ah yes, because no other character has been reoccurring.

...yeah, I'd make a list, but that's far too long.

The first movie is a partner flick where Wolverine and Rogue are contrasted against each other, in that they desire a place to belong but their different personalities makes them approach the offer of said belonging differently.
The second movie is supposedly about Wolverine's past, but Jean Gray's powers and their implications are actually the more important plot in regards to continuity (with an important side plot about Rogue's acceptance of her powers).
The third movie is a true ensemble cast where the main players are arguably Magneto and Xavier as they face off in their different philosophical understanding of what it means to be persecuted and a mutant.

Sure, Wolverine is the breakout character, but the original trilogy of movies was very adept at highlighting most of the cast at various times to establish how different people reacted to being mutants or being a human in a world filled with mutants.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

What I am saying is what makes you think DC can make good movies without Snyder when they have proven they can fuck up with movies like Green Lantern?

You're asking the wrong question mate. It's not whether or not they can make good movies without him (though Christopher Nolan, Tim Burton and Richard Donner have made the best DC films they've ever had). What we know for certain is that they cannot make good movies with him. Everything else is anyone's guess. The MoS, BvS, JL continuity wasn't good. Going further down that road would have made it worse, not better. Snyder's *only* talent is in taking a visual from a page and making it into a big screen reality, I'll give him that; he *can* make something *look* good, but that's as far as it goes. He cannot write or tell a good story, make a good film or portray Superman well.

The obvious solution would be to just not explain all of that... The film should be able to convey most of that without outright saying anything. They wouldn't even need to explain the Yellow or Red lanterns until they appear....

That was me being absurd to reflect the absurdity of the hero, particularly when taken outside the context of a comic book page. There is no way to make a serious, gritty, "dark" Green Lantern film. I'm not seriously suggesting they actually try to explain the above, I'm explaining why he would be an almost impossible sell to a movie going audience who aren't invested in the character. He's practically no different from this guy for heaven's sake.

IMO, if they tried to make it in some hypothetical/inevitable, future, reincarnated DCCU, using Marvel parlance Green Lantern should be a Phase 3 hero, like Doctor Strange. An absurd character, but introduced years down the line as more and more fantastic elements are introduced he doesn't stick out quite so much or seem quite as far fetched.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

What I am saying is what makes you think DC can make good movies without Snyder when they have proven they can fuck up with movies like Green Lantern?

You're asking the wrong question mate. It's not whether or not they can make good movies without him (though Christopher Nolan, Tim Burton and Richard Donner have made the best DC films they've ever had). What we know for certain is that they cannot make good movies with him. Everything else is anyone's guess. The MoS, BvS, JL continuity wasn't good. Going further down that road would have made it worse, not better. Snyder's *only* talent is in taking a visual from a page and making it into a big screen reality, I'll give him that; he *can* make something *look* good, but that's as far as it goes. He cannot write or tell a good story, make a good film or portray Superman well.

The obvious solution would be to just not explain all of that... The film should be able to convey most of that without outright saying anything. They wouldn't even need to explain the Yellow or Red lanterns until they appear....

That was me being absurd to reflect the absurdity of the hero, particularly when taken outside the context of a comic book page. There is no way to make a serious, gritty, "dark" Green Lantern film. I'm not seriously suggesting they actually try to explain the above, I'm explaining why he would be an almost impossible sell to a movie going audience who aren't invested in the character. He's practically no different from this guy for heaven's sake.

IMO, if they tried to make it in some hypothetical/inevitable, future, reincarnated DCCU, using Marvel parlance Green Lantern should be a Phase 3 hero, like Doctor Strange. An absurd character, but introduced years down the line as more and more fantastic elements are introduced he doesn't stick out quite so much or seem quite as far fetched.

To me it is still relevent. What makes you think they can do it without him after Green Lantern?

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

To me it is still relevent. What makes you think they can do it without him after Green Lantern?

As I already said, the one thing I can say with absolute certainty is that they cannot do it with him. Whether they can do it without him depends on having a clearer vision for the big picture, hiring talented writers to write compelling stories and good directors to turn those scripts into something approximating a watchable film.

The tragedy is that they already have a blueprint on how to make a perfect Superman film, since Richard Donner did it 30 years ago. This is how Superman is done right. This is how Snyder did it. Even this is 100x better than MoS. But then Eidos Montreal literally have the source code for Thief 1-3 and still produced the embarrassment that was Thief 4, so sometimes it is just possible to get it wrong.

Wait a minute...how many ways is that again?

​

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

To me it is still relevent. What makes you think they can do it without him after Green Lantern?

As I already said, the one thing I can say with absolute certainty is that they cannot do it with him. Whether they can do it without him depends on having a clearer vision for the big picture, hiring talented writers to write compelling stories and good directors to turn those scripts into something approximating a watchable film.

The tragedy is that they already have a blueprint on how to make a perfect Superman film, since Richard Donner did it 30 years ago. This is how Superman is done right. This is how Snyder did it. Even this is 100x better than MoS. But then Eidos Montreal literally have the source code for Thief 1-3 and still produced the embarrassment that was Thief 4, so sometimes it is just possible to get it wrong.

Wait a minute...how many ways is that again?

​

In my opinion talented writers and directors are a rare species in the Blockbuster Hollywood scene.

 

[minkus_draconus]

A new actor for Superman isn't hard to imagine since the character was killed. They can easily hand-wave him being different by whatever mcguffin is the reason for his return.
I also think we won't have a problem with a new Bruce Wayne since we have had so many actors in that role.

 

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

That was me being absurd to reflect the absurdity of the hero, particularly when taken outside the context of a comic book page. There is no way to make a serious, gritty, "dark" Green Lantern film. I'm not seriously suggesting they actually try to explain the above, I'm explaining why he would be an almost impossible sell to a movie going audience who aren't invested in the character. He's practically no different from this guy for heaven's sake.

Ah, that makes sense.

IMO, if they tried to make it in some hypothetical/inevitable, future, reincarnated DCCU, using Marvel parlance Green Lantern should be a Phase 3 hero, like Doctor Strange. An absurd character, but introduced years down the line as more and more fantastic elements are introduced he doesn't stick out quite so much or seem quite as far fetched.

I don't think so. We'd already be getting a movie about greek gods and a movie about an alien baby crash landing in Kansas (And, hopefully, a movie about a guy that runs really fast). As long as the movie doesn't do a deep dive into Lantern lore, it'd be fine.

Hell, I'd love to see a buddy cop movie about Hal Jordan, functioning as Abin Sur's human liaison as per his request, and Abin Sur, the green lantern for most of the movie and interested in Jordan for various reasons including a prophecy about his death (Something viewers wouldn't know about until the sequel). It'd basically be Hal Jordan and Abin Sur hunting down an alien assassin or some such, the two becoming friends, Abin Sur dropping some light exposition about the Corp., and finally Abin Sur is struck and, while dying, hands Jordan the ring and recites the oath with him. Something easy to digest that tells the story of how this guy got the thing. Because, honestly, I'd prefer a Justice League (1) with a Lantern (Hal or John) than without. We can get to the fun Space-cop stuff in the sequel.

And I do think Doctor Strange would have fit fine in phase 1, if only because of Thor introducing gods, other worlds, giants, and whatnot to the MCU. Nothing in Doctor Strange was quite as outlandish as Thor.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

In my opinion talented writers and directors are a rare species in the Blockbuster Hollywood scene.

Chris Nolan, Bryan Singer, Jon Favreau, Matthew Vaughan, Joss Whedon, Sam Raimi, Shane Black, the Russo brothers, Tim Burton. Even Ang Lee (yes, The Hulk!). One step out, there are other great directors like Ridley Scott, Danny Boyle, the Coen brothers, Davids Fincher and Lynch, John Woo.

Great directors do exist. Snyder just isn't one of them.

 

[Kenbo Slice]

Samtemdo, dark and gritty doesn't equal mature. When will you realize that? The DCEU feels like it was created by a 14 year old scene kid who exclusively shops at Hot Topic.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

In my opinion talented writers and directors are a rare species in the Blockbuster Hollywood scene.

Chris Nolan, Bryan Singer, Jon Favreau, Matthew Vaughan, Joss Whedon, Sam Raimi, Shane Black, the Russo brothers, Tim Burton. Even Ang Lee (yes, The Hulk!). One step out, there are other great directors like Ridley Scott, Danny Boyle, the Coen brothers, Davids Fincher and Lynch, John Woo.

Great directors do exist. Snyder just isn't one of them.

(In order of the names you listed starting with Nolan)

Chris Nolan brought about the dark and edgy feel of Superheroes. And I doubt he's gonna waste time with nothing but superheroe movies.

Bryan Singer lost his luster after X Men Apocalypse

Hated the Iron Man movies. All of them except the very first half of Iron Man 1.

I hated the First Class era of X-Men movies

Do I even need to mention him?

Spiderman 3 was the BvS of its time.

No comment on Shane Black.

Overrated, but whatever. So long as they don't uses the standard set by Kevin Feigi and go thier own direction.

Tim Burton now is not Tim Burton then, and really do you really want Johnny Deep to be in any Superhero movie?

Wow, somebody here who LIKES Ang Lee's the Hulk? I thought that movie is underrated.

Ridley Scott is more miss then hits these days.

No idea if Danny can pull it off.

Coen Brothers should not waste their time making Superhero movies. They are too good for them.

David Lynch? Really?

Never cared for John Woo's work.