Upcoming DC Extended Universe (DCEU) Movies

Nervous Wreck · 09-06-2017 10:39pm

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Well in this case the comic are wrong. Fair play to them for actually doing the research though and depicting the red dwarf sun correctly.

This is kinda my point. Snyder, without any real understanding of the source material, changes important aspects of them and relies on people not noticing or not caring or just making confabulations that he has gone to the effort of researching how a red dwarf star would appear through the lens of Krypton's atmosphere, to get away with it. I guarantee you he did not do this. The guy hasn't even bothered reading the comics. Gimme a break.

IncognitoMan · 09-06-2017 10:47pm

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

This is kinda my point. Snyder, without any real understanding of the source material, changes important aspects of them and relies on people not noticing or not caring or just making confabulations that he has gone to the effort of researching how a red dwarf star would appear through the lens of Krypton's atmosphere, to get away with it. I guarantee you he did not do this. The guy hasn't even bothered reading the comics. Gimme a break.

Ok, look sure. I mean its a strange thing to be annoyed about considering the science behind it would be correct but sure I'm not going to convince you otherwise.

Nervous Wreck · 09-06-2017 10:52pm

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Ok, look sure. I mean its a strange thing to be annoyed about considering the science behind it would be correct but sure I'm not going to convince you otherwise.

I'm not even annoyed by it. I'm much more annoyed by all the people Batman and Superman murdered in cold blood.

Penn · 09-06-2017 11:15pm

I've made the point before, but it's more than simply a case of not wanting Batman to kill. If they're going with a Batman who is willing to kill henchmen to get Kryptonite to kill Superman based on the chance that Superman may one day turn evil, then the Joker and Harley Quinn should not be alive considering they killed Robin. Whatever happened that caused Robin's death, Batman should have killed the people responsible.

Batman killed henchmen to get Kryptonite. There's no reason the Joker should still be alive. Batman should have spent years tracking him down, never stopping until the Joker was dead.

It's not just "Batman shouldn't kill", and fair enough if they're using Clark's sacrifice as something which means Batman decides not to kill any more, but for me it throws up a huge inconsistency in Batman's character in the past. Random henchmen transporting something I can use as a weapon against someone because they might turn evil? Fine. Robin's murderers? Ah, never really liked him anyway.

Nervous Wreck · 09-06-2017 11:22pm

Another great point Penn.

IncognitoMan · 09-06-2017 11:23pm

To be fair that's a much better point. I wonder will it be covered in The Batman should it ever get made? It's a genuinely interesting story point.

Also cinematic Batman has kind of always been a bit of a d1ck.

Penn · 09-06-2017 11:26pm

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Another great point Penn.

It all stems from Under The Red Hood. Jason Todd is furious at Batman for not caring about him enough to kill the Joker when he thought Joker had killed him, but Batman has to stand by the point that he can't cross that line because if he does, he won't be able to come back from it. Whereas now, that's exactly the situation we're in. Batman was willing to kill random henchmen but not the people who killed Robin, basically his adopted son.

Nervous Wreck · 09-06-2017 11:32pm

Penn wrote: »

It all stems from Under The Red Hood. Jason Todd is furious at Batman for not caring about him enough to kill the Joker when he thought Joker had killed him, but Batman has to stand by the point that he can't cross that line because if he does, he won't be able to come back from it. Whereas now, that's exactly the situation we're in. Batman was willing to kill random henchmen but not the people who killed Robin, basically his adopted son.

I guess it's another in a long list of examples why beginning the universe with a Batman who's already 20 years in is a very complicated idea that doesn't seem to have been given the time and consideration it deserved.

Penn · 09-06-2017 11:40pm

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I guess it's another in a long list of examples why beginning the universe with a Batman who's already 20 years in is a very complicated idea that doesn't seem to have been given the time and consideration it deserved.

That's why I can kinda forgive the destruction caused in MoS. Superman is new at this, fighting an enemy like Zod who will only get stronger as more time passes as he learns to control his powers on Earth, and Superman has no way of containing him even if he did capture him. I can accept Superman killing Zod and for the destruction caused during their fight (though I still think it was overdone for cinematic reasons without enough thought into the story and character effects).

But Batman killing henchmen simply throws up inconsistencies for me that need to be addressed. I'd f*cking love if they did a version of Under The Red Hood and addressed it in their own way. They've already laid groundwork for it and it's a great solo Batman story to use as a framework.

IncognitoMan · 09-06-2017 11:48pm

I'd love if they explained it by saying Batman did kill the Joker and it set him down the current path he was on in BvS. Leto's Joker can be explained by being a copycat that appeared after, or something along those lines. Not too worried about what they do with Leto's joker at this stage.

Nervous Wreck · 09-06-2017 11:51pm

I'd actually be happiest if they never mentioned Leto's Joker again...

Lithium93_ · 09-06-2017 11:53pm

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I'd actually be happiest if they never mentioned Leto's Joker again...

Definitely 2nd this. Leto's take on The Joker was ****ING terrible.

IncognitoMan · 09-06-2017 11:58pm

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I'd actually be happiest if they never mentioned Leto's Joker again...

Well we can at least agree on that :pac:

Nervous Wreck · 10-06-2017 12:00am

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Well we can at least agree on that :pac:

There's always some common ground!

Doctor DooM · 10-06-2017 12:43am

Penn wrote: »

It all stems from Under The Red Hood. Jason Todd is furious at Batman for not caring about him enough to kill the Joker when he thought Joker had killed him, but Batman has to stand by the point that he can't cross that line because if he does, he won't be able to come back from it. Whereas now, that's exactly the situation we're in. Batman was willing to kill random henchmen but not the people who killed Robin, basically his adopted son.

I can remember this being a key frustration of a lot of comic fanboys at the time. It LOOKED like they were doing a thing where the death of Jason had turned Batman hard and that's why he was happy enough to kill (and that could be really cool if meeting Supes and Diana was the thing that snapped him back to his senses, redeeming him).

This isn't even implied in the film though, it's a logical jump that's being made entirely based on outside knowledge of the red hood stuff. All we know is that Joker probably killed a Robin in this world, which in itself is an intriguing mystery for future films.

Ben Gadot · 10-06-2017 7:28am

@Penn but we don't know what exactly went down with Robin's murder. For all we know Batman did try to murder the Joker but was stopped. Think of their interaction in Hush where he would have killed him if not for Gordon's intervention.

Penn · 10-06-2017 9:53am

Ben Gadot wrote: »

@Penn but we don't know what exactly went down with Robin's murder. For all we know Batman did try to murder the Joker but was stopped. Think of their interaction in Hush where he would have killed him if not for Gordon's intervention.

Again, if they do find some way of addressing it, then I'll be happy and I'll accept that. Even if it's done poorly, at least it will have been acknowledged and addressed.

But regardless of which Robin was killed, they're all basically his adopted sons, and given what's sprayed on Robin's suit its clear it was the Joker who did it. If Batman is willing to kill (considering he flattened probably 3 guys in a car, then used the car with their corpses in to flatten another car probably with another 2 or 3 guys in it) just to get kryptonite which is something all these henchmen are doing is collecting and transporting, I can't think of anything that could have stopped Batman from killing Joker or even spending every day working on hunting him down. BvS shows that Batman had retired and only came back once Superman came into the picture. Nothing should have been able to stop Batman from his quest to kill Joker.

Even in Hush, part of the reason Gordon is able to stop Batman from killing Joker is because that's a version of Batman who doesn't kill. The DCEU version of Batman isn't. This version of Batman would not have stopped hunting Joker down to kill him. We can see that in the lengths he's willing to go to to kill Superman not even because Superman is evil, but based on the 1% chance that he might become evil.

FunLover18 · 10-06-2017 10:04am

Ben Gadot wrote:

@Penn but we don't know what exactly went down with Robin's murder. For all we know Batman did try to murder the Joker but was stopped. Think of their interaction in Hush where he would have killed him if not for Gordon's intervention.

Is Batman's cameo in Suicide Squad not set after BvS?

Penn · 10-06-2017 1:11pm

IncognitoMan wrote: »

I'd love if they explained it by saying Batman did kill the Joker and it set him down the current path he was on in BvS. Leto's Joker can be explained by being a copycat that appeared after, or something along those lines. Not too worried about what they do with Leto's joker at this stage.

Suicide Squad showed that Harley Quinn was an accomplice to the murder of Robin, and Leto's Joker was the one who turned her into Harley Quinn, so the same issue arises. Leto's Joker has to be the one who killed Robin.

FunLover18 wrote: »

Is Batman's cameo in Suicide Squad not set after BvS?

It's not 100% clear, as while the events of SS take place after BvS, we don't know for sure when Batman captured Deadshot and HQ and how long they were in prison for, though given the age of Deadshot's daughter and the fact Batman was supposedly retired for a few years preceding BvS, I'm guessing it all happens after BvS.

Nervous Wreck · 10-06-2017 2:55pm

Penn wrote: »

Suicide Squad showed that Harley Quinn was an accomplice to the murder of Robin, and Leto's Joker was the one who turned her into Harley Quinn, so the same issue arises. Leto's Joker has to be the one who killed Robin.

Does it? I've repressed much of that movie... what happens?

Ben Gadot · 10-06-2017 3:06pm

In those flashy blurbs on each squad member at the beginning Harley's states she was an accomplice.

Nervous Wreck · 10-06-2017 3:09pm

Ben Gadot wrote: »

In those flashy blurbs on each squad member at the beginning Harley's states she was an accomplice.

Ah yes, the video game character selection screens! Does it call out "Robin" or specify Jason Todd, out of interest?

Penn · 10-06-2017 3:09pm

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Does it? I've repressed much of that movie... what happens?

In the introduction to each of the main characters, a screen showing some info about them is shown

Says HQ was an accomplice to the murder of Robin.

Slydice · 10-06-2017 5:28pm

Oh, I don't remember that. I demand a prequel!

Agent Coulson · 14-06-2017 11:51am

It's being reported today that most of the reshoots are about adding more Wonder Woman to the JL.

techdiver · 14-06-2017 12:13pm

Agent Coulson wrote: »

It's being reported today that most of the reshoots are about adding more Wonder Woman to the JL.

On one front you wouldn't blame them for putting their new found biggest star front and centre but on the other it could be just the usual bull**** rumours that just assume since reshoots are happening now, that it must be automatically to do with the success of Wonder Woman.

pixelburp · 14-06-2017 12:22pm

I could well believe it: DC are super-reactionary in any case, so it's easy to imagine they decided to double down on the first demonstrably good film they managed to produce.

techdiver · 14-06-2017 12:23pm

From looking online, Cavill is there in his Superman suit for the reshoots too, as he posted on instagram, so he's obviously involved too.

I wouldn't see reshoots as a negative either. They obviously see issues with what they have and want to address it. Better than just releasing what had.

Agent Coulson · 14-06-2017 12:24pm

Also with Joss doing the reshoots it really wouldn't be a surprise at all that he is adding more girl power to the film.

Nervous Wreck · 14-06-2017 12:28pm

pixelburp wrote: »

I could well believe it: DC are super-reactionary in any case, so it's easy to imagine they decided to double down on the first demonstrably good film they managed to produce.

This. It makes sense that they do it anyway... let's just hope it makes sense *how* they do it.

Ben Gadot · 14-06-2017 1:01pm

pixelburp wrote: »

I could well believe it: DC are super-reactionary in any case, so it's easy to imagine they decided to double down on the first demonstrably good film they managed to produce.

Yeah, DC are calling the shots....lol.

pixelburp · 14-06-2017 2:02pm

Ben Gadot wrote: »

Yeah, DC are calling the shots....lol.

As opposed to what? God-Emperor Whedon pronouncing 'Moar Wimmin'? Wonder Woman is a huge critical (financial?) success, the first genuine reservoir of goodwill built up with a DCEU film, so why wouldn't they include Diana more in Justice League? That's obvious even to me, and I'm a spambot on an internet forum

Penn · 14-06-2017 2:04pm

I think the confusion is between DC and WB. WB are likely calling the shots rather so than DC.

Lithium93_ · 14-06-2017 2:08pm

I for one wouldn't mind more Wonder Woman in the Justice League film.

IncognitoMan · 14-06-2017 2:17pm

It's hard to say really without knowing how the film plays out.

If it's true (and that's a big if) then I hope it isn't just shoehorning her in because her film was well received. If Joss came in and thought her story in the film could do with a few extra scenes then great. Should make the film better.

But once again this is all a big if as I'm not too sure on how reliable the sources are. If someone is willing to say they trust one of the sources then fair enough.

Doctor DooM · 14-06-2017 3:53pm

I don't think most people on the interwebs see a difference between DC and WB anymore, but from the scuttlebutt videos I watch it is indeed WB that makes all these decisions, and has lately been lurching around like a drunk balancing on a trunk rolling down a river.

I cannot see how Whedon led reshoots featuring WW can work out for the worse of this film though. My hopes were at an all time low prior anyway...

Ben Gadot · 14-06-2017 4:17pm

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I don't think most people on the interwebs see a difference between DC and WB anymore, but from the scuttlebutt videos I watch it is indeed WB that makes all these decisions, and has lately been lurching around like a drunk balancing on a trunk rolling down a river.

I cannot see how Whedon led reshoots featuring WW can work out for the worse of this film though. My hopes were at an all time low prior anyway...

DC are at best creative advisors.

WB are calling the shots, that has always been clear. The dark tone that was established with MOS was their idea when they asked Nolan and Goyer during the production of TDKR for story ideas for a rebooted Superman.

They then hired Snyder to deliver on it.

The great thing about the MCU is their almost holistic approach to bringing their characters to life. They obviously gave a sh1t and had the influence and more importantly the power to show that. DC don't have that luxury.....not that I feel sorry for them given that I'm sure they did very nicely out of selling the film rights to their entire library.

pixelburp · 27-06-2017 2:45pm

So here's one to take with a massive pinch of salt: apparently Warner Bros. are shopping around for directors to adapt Red Son:

http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/superman/50345/superman-warner-bros-pitching-to-directors-for-live-action-red-son-movie

Now, the rumour is based around Tweets between Mark Millar & Jordan Vogt-Roberts (director of Kong: Skull Island), with Millar basically admitting that it's secondhand tattle from his contacts in studios, so who knows how true any of it is.

techdiver · 27-06-2017 3:01pm

pixelburp wrote: »

So here's one to take with a massive pinch of salt: apparently Warner Bros. are shopping around for directors to adapt Red Son:

http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/superman/50345/superman-warner-bros-pitching-to-directors-for-live-action-red-son-movie

Now, the rumour is based around Tweets between Mark Millar & Jordan Vogt-Roberts (director of Kong: Skull Island), with Millar basically admitting that it's secondhand tattle from his contacts in studios, so who knows how true any of it is.

Ah here, can we just get a couple of proper Superman movies, before doing something like this?

It's a great story and all that, but others should come first. It would have to be in a different timeline and not part of the DCEU also.

Nervous Wreck · 27-06-2017 3:31pm

Jesus that better be for a standalone animated feature...

Ben Gadot · 27-06-2017 4:37pm

Ya....has to be horse**** unless they're planning on not playing it straight with Clark....again.

I'll go with horse****.

Penn · 27-06-2017 4:52pm

They'll use the name "Red Son" or imply it's kinda based on it and then have it relate to nothing from the comic. It's just a marketable name.

There's no way they could actually do that story.

Slydice · 27-06-2017 7:27pm

I've heard about red son and seen some of the google image search results.

Don't know the story though .. bar the outline.

Sounds like cool idea.

Ben Gadot · 27-06-2017 7:31pm

Slydice wrote: »

I've heard about red son and seen some of the google image search results.

Don't know the story though .. bar the outline.

Sounds like cool idea.

It's a very interesting and from what I heard well executed story, but the problem is that it doesn't quite fit with what they established already. I think people just want a MOS sequel that will let Clark be Clark and play to his strengths.

Agent Coulson · 27-06-2017 7:36pm

Henry Cavill has talked about it being his favourite Superman story when doing research for the role.

I'd guess myself it will be done as a Warner Animated film.

Nervous Wreck · 27-06-2017 9:11pm

Red Son is fantastic; up there with Millar's best. But it only works for these reasons:

It's an Elseworlds story, which they can't really do for film
Superman's behaviour as a villainous dictator is antithetical to who the character is supposed to be - which really doesn't work when the established DCEU version is a murderer

The more I think about it, the more confident I am that it'll be animated. Thank jaysus.

I might read this again, now that we're talking about it...!

Penn · 28-06-2017 9:54am

Slydice wrote: »

I've heard about red son and seen some of the google image search results.

Don't know the story though .. bar the outline.

Sounds like cool idea.

It only works though based on Superman landing in Russia as a baby and being raised with certain values which we know isn't what happened in the DCEU, because we know he was raised in Smallville by the Kents. Plus the alternate versions of other characters can't then exist either.

It's a great story, but cannot be implemented in the DCEU without completely changing the entire basis of the story, thereby making it so different that it will be Red Son in name only.

Doctor DooM · 28-06-2017 12:59pm

Penn wrote: »

It only works though based on Superman landing in Russia as a baby and being raised with certain values which we know isn't what happened in the DCEU, because we know he was raised in Smallville by the Kents. Plus the alternate versions of other characters can't then exist either.

It's a great story, but cannot be implemented in the DCEU without completely changing the entire basis of the story, thereby making it so different that it will be Red Son in name only.

... unless you'd already seeded the fact that the flash might be able to jump dimensions, for example one where Darkseid ruled the earth, that everyone assumed was time travel...

Nervous Wreck · 28-06-2017 1:44pm

Doctor DooM wrote: »

... unless you'd already seeded the fact that the flash might be able to jump dimensions, for example one where Darkseid ruled the earth, that everyone assumed was time travel...

I thought it was a dream...

Penn · 28-06-2017 1:50pm

Doctor DooM wrote: »

... unless you'd already seeded the fact that the flash might be able to jump dimensions, for example one where Darkseid ruled the earth, that everyone assumed was time travel...

In comics, sure. But introducing alternate dimensions in a cinematic universe is just going to alienate casual fans far too much to warrant it.

Not saying they can't use it to an extent (like you say, having The Flash be able to travel between dimensions), but setting an entire film in an alternate dimension which is completely different from the other films... It's not a risk worth taking. I think you'd annoy and lose a lot of cinemagoers.

I remember my sister and her husband being confused that Joseph Gordon Levitt wasn't playing Robin in BvS. They knew Bale and Caine were recast, but didn't initially get that BvS wasn't a continuation of the Nolan films. They didn't even get that JGL became Batman at the end of TDKR and that Bruce retired with Selina, they thought JGL was going to become Robin because his real name was Robin.

Drop them into a film and have Superman speaking with a Russian accent and you'll have completely lost them from the start. The movies have to be built for the fans but also for the wider audience. Alternate realities or Elseworlds... can't see it happening.

Upcoming DC Extended Universe (DCEU) Movies

Comments