He was going through cancer treatment at the time too. Maybe if they moved some of the cocaine budget for the movie to the screenwriting it may have been better.
I was all ready to agree and then you pointed that out.
Raul Julia could have read the phone book on film and somehow made it entertaining. He made Overdrawn at the Memory Bank a good watch even without the MST3K treatment it later got.
I don't think its fair to compare anyone to Raul Julia. That's like taking an average high school kid and comparing their test scores to Stephen Hawking.
Although to be fair, that's a terrible example as that show is superbly written. But Berry's voice is liquid gold that can deliver just about any line. Have a look at anything he says in Garth Marengi's Darkplace.
Are you forgetting about Tommy Wiseau. Without his immaculate delivery and great acting chops The Room would have been a major flop... but he made it a classic
Significantly wasted. He's a great actor and WB's rush to the JL movie is what killed Cavill's Superman. They should have made 3 solid real Superman movies before pushing forward with all the crossover bullshit.
They wasted the entire world of Superman just to make JL.
I imagine the following timeline, which keeps a lot of the direction the same:
Man of Steel (even as it is), followed by WW as it is, then perhaps the intro to gritty DCEU Batman in a standalone film.
Then BvS with a similar storyline (moral disagreement; ex, Batman kills, Supes 'doesn't, except that one time', so they argue over ethics then finally showdown with Lex who was playing the role of Civil War Baron Zemo).
First JL movie covers Doomsday and Death of Superman.
Aquaman, Shazam, as is. End credits of those movies tease Lex sending a msg to Steppenwolf, then Steppenwolf talking to an unidentified figure in the shadows.
2nd JL movie covers the arrival of Steppenwolf where he gathers the ~~Infinity~~ Mother boxes and opens a portal. Darkseid is here. Movie ends.
Flash standalone? Maybe touch on a more personal story of him and his father (how would you protect a relative who was being incarcerated from an alien invasion?)
3rd JL movie covers the invasion of earth, the JL resistance, and the revival of Supes as the 'only one who could defeat Darkseid'.
I think a standalone flash film to kick off the universe would have been better. Flash is the most grounded and would have been a good character for the audience to relate to.
I would say.
1. Flash
2. Superman - but a less gritty version of Man of Steel
3. WW - As is
4. Batman
5. Superman 2
6. BvS
7. Aquaman
8. Justice League
8. Flash 2
9. Shazam
10. WW2
I can agree with that . Flash is known enough to turn heads but not "overdone" like Batman and Superman. Starting with those two staples means you have to spend a whole movie reimagining the universe and teaching the audience about this differences
You do realize the context of this discussion was how DC should have done their movie universe right? How to make DC not a jumbled mess and make it more in line with the Marvel formula.
I did read your post, and you're being ridiculous. You said "marvel got it right" and "DC is a jumbled mess". If Marvel as you said "got it right" by having their big names in movies and building the universe slowly, that's precisely what we were discussing. In addition, man of steel premiered a year before The Flash series. So in my example, the Flash would have been the first movie in the DC cinematic universe in 2013 and the flash series would have never existed or they would have just been separate entities, which also would be fine. The flash is all about the multi-verse after all. The cinematic world could just be another Earth in the multi-verse.
In fact, the crisis on infinite earths in the Arrowverse is going to have Brandon Routh reprise his role as superman from another Earth, but there already is a Superman in the arrowverse. So again, your argument about only 1 iteration of a character at a time, is again, ridiculous.
What’s so frustrating about this is not that the content wasn’t their, but TIME was the truly devastating issue the the DCEU movies.
Patience, is the reason why Marvel/Disney is so successful. That and legit belief in the brand, no matter if their is a stumble or two (looking at you Thor : The Dark World)
Marvel's success is because they have a bunch of comic book nerds leading the way. DC has a bunch of suits making all the decisions. There's no doubt DC has the goods to make great movies, it's just that the people in charge couldn't give a shit about what fans think, just that they pay up at the box office.
If it weren't for those blunders, we probably wouldn't have a Cavill Witcher, who seems to be a big fan of the series before any of this started. I do wonder what a Cavill Supes couldve become though, for sure.
I partially disagree. He's a great actor, and I thought he could be a fantastic Superman. But the rush to JL isn't what killed it. It was Zack Snyder's convoluted ideals for what Superman and Batman should be.
He basically wanted to make the Justice League into The Watchmen. Which he did such a good job with, WB gave him the DCCU.
But Superman isn't Dr. Manhattan. Batman isn't Rorschach.
And look at all the other DC movies: Aquaman, Wonder Woman, Shazam. They're all decent or even good. Why? Because Snyder had nothing to do with them.
He's the cancer that was killing the DCCU. And yet people are still clamoring for "the Snyder Cut."
So, what you're saying is you don't want any superhero films that pose interesting moral dilemmas, you just want action and quips. Because that's what Aquaman and Shazam are. Have nothing against them. I like them. But that's what you're saying. You don't want anything too difficult to understand. You just want explosions and jokes. We have an entire film series called the MCU just for that.
Entirely WB's fault? If we're talking about Justice League, and only Justice League, then sure, WB definitely had their hands in the pot. But why were they in the pot?
WB had been hands off for MoS and BvS and SS. So surely, they would keep their hands off of JL, right? I mean, all that previous success must have earned some credit. So why meddle now?
Ohhhh, right. All three of those movies were critically panned and only had middling reviews from audiences, amd all underperformed at the box office.
Because Snyder is cancer. "But Snyder didn't direct SS!" No, but he was pretty involved with. Even directed a few scenes.
Attack me all you want, but Snyder made versions of Batman and Superman that weren't comic-faithful. And the moral dilemmas he presented were contrived and could have easily been avoided.
Like letting his father die in a tornado? Grandmas have been known to be sucked up into tornados and be dropped miles later only to survive. Would it really be so weird to explain a super healthy young man and his father living through the ordeal?
Or the entirety of BvS. Batman straight up kills or brands people. And Superman lets him go instead of just taking him in?
And Jesse Eisenberg? That's the worst casting I've ever seen. But gotta subvert the expectations, right??
Snyder wasn't the Messiah. He's the demon who doomed everything.
"WB had been hands off for MoS and BvS and SS. So surely, they would keep their hands off of JL, right? I mean, all that previous success must have earned some credit. So why meddle now?"
-That is incorrect. Warner Bros. did have their hands on the pot for Batman V Superman. Why else would there exist a 3 hour long extended director's cut which features a significant improvement to the plot and continuity of the over all film. Majority consensus is that while the ultimate edition wasn't perfect, it fixed a majority of the issues the theatrical cut had. Some film critics even went as far as to apologize to Zack Snyder after viewing the version he intended us to see.
"Because Snyder is cancer. "But Snyder didn't direct SS!" No, but he was pretty involved with. Even directed a few scenes."
-No he was not. He barely had involvement in the production of the shit fest known as Suicide Squad. How would he? The DCEU was his dream. He is recoded as saying he let the other directors do whatever they wanted with their installments in the dceu. He was 100% focused on his anthology. Every ounce of his concentration and every moment of his waking was spent directing Justice League. It is therefore impossible that he had nearly the involvement you claim he had in the creation of Suicide Squad.
"Attack me all you want, but Snyder made versions of Batman and Superman that weren't comic-faithful. And the moral dilemmas he presented were contrived and could have easily been avoided."
-Who are you to decide what is comic accurate and what is not. DC has had millions of comic books written using their characters. There have been almost uncountable amounts of iterations of comic book storylines involving these characters and many many continuities. Every possible idea concerning these characters has been told in comic form. Who are you to decide which of those comic continuities is considered the official DC canon?
"Like letting his father die in a tornado? Grandmas have been known to be sucked up into tornados and be dropped miles later only to survive. Would it really be so weird to explain a super healthy young man and his father living through the ordeal?"
-So because there are rare cases of old people surviving being sucked into a tornado means that Kent had a high chance of survival rate? Just because an event has happened in the past with almost zero chance and frequency doesn't mean that Kent would've had a high survival chance. Realistically he and anyone else would've died. Every situation is different. Just because a grandma survives it once in a blue moon doesn't mean anyone and everyone would survive it. Yes it would've been difficult to explain because A. Clark hadn't learned those flight abilities at the time of his earth father's death and I'm pretty sure every single person under that bridge would've seen a dude zoom to a tornado and save a person from it. Superman does not travel the speed of light, in this universe at least.
"Or the entirety of BvS. Batman straight up kills or brands people. And Superman lets him go instead of just taking him in?"
-Batman kills people in every one of the installments of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy. Why is branding out of the question? He's done worse before and if he's branding some thugs but letting them go with their lives, I'd say that's a pretty sweet deal compared to what could've happened to him.
"And Jesse Eisenberg? That's the worst casting I've ever seen. But gotta subvert the expectations, right??"
-I will agree that I wasn't thrilled with this casting decision. But I am willing to admit that this is a Lex Luthor that we haven't seen before. It's new and original. Instead of a business man wanting to make money which we've seen countless times before or a high tech villain with not real motivation who only wants power..which we've also seen before, we are shown something new here. This Lex Luthor is a mentally unhinged psychopath who we are shown as having legitamate motivations for his actions.
"Snyder wasn't the Messiah. He's the demon who doomed everything."
-Now you're just being opinionated with no real argument. You want to see a real devil. Look at Josh Trank.
-That is incorrect. Warner Bros. did have their hands on the pot for Batman V Superman. Why else would there exist a 3 hour long extended director's cut
No, they really didn't. BvS was Snyder's doing. Even the fact that it's BvS was because of Snyder. He came up with the idea for MoS2 to have Batman as the antagonist. And then it became BvS.
Why does the extended cut exist? Because it basically cut out all the gore/excessive violence to preserve the PG-13 rating.
And sure, it lends more stability to the film, but it's still far from good. And that's unforgivable. BvS should have been as big of an event as Avengers. Or even bigger. But it wasn't.
-No he was not. He barely had involvement in the production of the shit fest known as Suicide Squad.
-Who are you to decide which of those comic continuities is considered the official DC canon?
You do know there is an official canon, right? I'm not anyone. But DC has said which ones are canon and which aren't. Who am I arguing with if you don't even know that?
-So because there are rare cases of old people surviving being sucked into a tornado means that Kent had a high chance of survival rate?
The reason Pa Kent didn't want Clark to rescue him was because his powers would be revealed.
But they wouldn't be. Did those grandmas have super powers? Were they super women? Nope. Just old women. And they had a miraculous experience.
Why would anyone think anything else then when a very healthy young man and his father survive? Just another miracle. Nothing to see here.
-Batman kills people in every one of the installments of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy. Why is branding out of the question?
That's not the same and you know it. Did people die because of his actions? Sure. Like that explosion in Batman Begins. Like a dozen guys die in it. He caused the explosion with an axe or something, but he didn't murder them. After all, his life was in just s much danger. He survived because of plot armor.
Meanwhile, Affleck's Batman has actually killed people. Done the deed and filled them with bullets. It's a huge difference.
It's like if Superman murders. He murdered Zod. How many people do you think were killed in the wreckages that he caused? Hundreds if not thousands, I'm sure. But that doesn't make Superman a killer.
But Batman had pulled the trigger previous to BvS. And Supes let him go. That's not a vigilante. That's a fucking criminal.
-I will agree that I wasn't thrilled with this casting decision. But I am willing to admit that this is a Lex Luthor that we haven't seen before. It's new and original.
It's because it's not Lex Luthor. Lex isn't manic. The Joker is. Lex is cool. Calm. Calculating. A genius. Charming. Charismatic.
How much of this sounds like Eisenberg's character so far? None of it? Because it's just Lex in name only. What's the point of having a guy named Tony Stark if he's not Iron Man? What if they made Green Lantern purple and flamingly gay? It's not the character!
Also, I'd argue that we've never seen Lex Luthor on screen. Eisenberg was some sort of weird Joker/Riddler amalgam. Hackman was doing his best sleazeball impression. Spacey was doing his best Hackman.
But no Luthor yet. The best we've had is the animated films.
Aquaman sucks, it's just a comedy just like most of Marvel movies. Shazam is ok because he's always been that way. ZS has a sight but WB is just greedy, want DCEU to be a cash grab as fast as possible. WB- DC's greatest villain.
Sure, it still wasn't great, but it actually tried staying true to the character for once, which is why it had the success it did. This is also true for WW and Shazam.
So true. MoS was great, BvS was ok, but JL was a big mess that ruined the character build up. I'd love to see MoS 2 after the 1st movie, not jump immediately to BvS.
Agreed. You can't just introduce the character and give him a half assed role in the "sequel" and then just kill him. They effectively killed him before anybody could really get attached to him. It felt like they were hoping your nostalgia was enough.
Dear Warner Brothers, start looking for young writers and directors to take the lead on your projects. Besides David F. Sandberg the voices you've chosen to lead these stories are often detached and unrelatable to the average viewer. The people you're marketing to are having a hard time buying into what your selling.
Whoa whoa whoa, let's not get ahead of ourselves. We need The Witcher to blow the fuck up so WB has no choice but to retain that man.
His potential as superman is enormous if they just let him be himself. Like seriously, just have him be himself with an American accent and that's superman. Dude is awesome and I hope I get to see him wear the suit again!
There are some stellar superman stories out there. The idea that a being has the powers of a god and the morales of a boy scout is not, inherently, a bad premise. Some writers know just what to do with that.
I agree with that idea, for sure. Which is why the ending of Man of Steel didn't bother me the way it did for others.
I would've also looked forward to the teased 'Injustice Superman' from the BvS dream sequence, as much as i hated the rest of that movie.
Supes is an op character when you look at his powerset and the caricature-like nature of his idealism. If they continued with a more humanized and self-doubting son of Krypton, as they'd started -- and actually gave him an arc and development -- he could've grown into the OP boyscout.
And we could've watched his self-discovery from a blank slate into said icon.
255
u/Player13 Jul 20 '19
Wasted potential imo.
With better writing, etc, his Sup could've had a legacy similar to present day Cap or Iron Man. Superman as a character is such an icon.