f13.net

I figured we needed this now instead of bouncing between threads.

So first off there is this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7Ef8qx6uOI)
Bascially Rock is teasing that he's been cast as Shazam. Which I'm ok with, simply cuz I'm a Rock fanboy.

Now we have a thread to track the trainwreck as it unfolds.

I guess the good news is that they can't fall beneath my expectations.

Even as a comic book fan, I continue to be completely indifferent regarding DC's movie plans.

Oh, I have no faith in wtf is going on with DC when it comes to their movie plans.  People still stop to look at train wrecks though.   :awesome_for_real:

Just to repeat it in the official thread for the DCCU - I don't necessarily think it is all the fault of the powers-that-be at DC.  Their heroes are just not right for movies.  They're too powerful and too built upon concepts from nearly a century ago.  They don't make sense together, and they don't work on screen.  They have a few that can, but most of them are just so ridiculously powerful that any real 'threat' to them either has to be unrealistic, or we're going to see a quarter of the world's population die in each film.

However, beyond having a much harder job than Marvel, they've seemed to botch it at every turn.

Someone in another thread said they already had three universes so the train has left the tracks before its left the station.

More than that:  Justice League, Arrow/Flash, Gotham, all the animated universes, Constantine, etc...

That is such a complete and utter bullshit cop out. Their characters are tailor made for over the top, blockbuster action movies so long as the creators actually respect the heart of the characters. I thought OTHER THAN THE ENDING, Man of Steel did a good job of portraying the character as well as his powers. It's only failure was in trying to ignore or "dirty-up" the 4-color nature of the character. Hell, a guy that dresses up as fucking Dracula made 3 hugely successful movies, successful both creatively and commercially. There is absolutely nothing in the Justice League that can't be filmed if done right.

That said, I'm positive the dickbags they have running the show at WB don't have clue fucking one how to pull this shit off.

The more 'powerful' the hero, the more unrealistic they seem. DC heroes are more powerful, in general, than Marvel's.  Superman outclasses everyone, but there are a good number of DC heroes that could wipe the floor with pretty much any Marvel character. 

Also, the less grounded in science the heroes powers are, the more unrealistic they seem.  Marvel's heroes were designed in response to the idea that DC's heroes were unrealistic products of the fantastic science fiction of the early 20th century.  DC has a few grounded heroes, but ther percentage of their core characters that are the products of inexplicable aliens, supernatural forces and the ilk (Superman, Wonder Woman, Hawkman, Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter, Dr. Fate, etc...) are much higher than Marvel - which based much of their initial cadre of heroes on science/evolution considered nearly a half centrury later (Hulk, FF, Spider-man, X-men, Captain America, Iron Man, Ant-man).  There are exceptions to the general rule for each (Batman and Flash (to an extent) in DC; Thor and Dr. Stange in Marvel), but the core of Marvel is grounded in something that 'makes more sense' than DC.

This is why Batman is the hero that has worked best for DC on film.  This is also why DC's first foray into super-powered people in the Arrowverse is Flash - he is one of the few DC big guns that is the product of science - making him more 'Marvel' than many other DC heroes.

I'm not saying a good DC film is impossible - I'm just saying that a movie about an alien with god-like powers is more difficult than a movie about a super-soldier, a man in an iron suit, a Dr.Jeckyl/Mr. Hyde  monster, etc...

The Flash got his powers from "lightning striking a vial of chemicals" or "the speed force" is no more "scientific or realistic" than Daredevil getting his radar sense from a radioactive waste bath to the dome or an irradiated spider biting a teenager. Superman is an alien who gets his strength from the sun is no less "realistic" than Thor the "space alien Earth people thought was a God with magic hammer."

You are talking utter shite.

Dude. 

I call out that Flash as getting on TV BECAUSE he has as much science/realistic as most of the Marvel science origins.  You pointing out that his origin is similar to many Marvel characters is repetition, not disagreement.

I mention Thor as an exception to the Marvel rule.  You saying Superman is like his is pointing out Superman is like the exception to the general Marvel rule. 

 

Green Lantern (Silver Age) is given his magic wishing ring by a space alien and joins the space cops. The Martian Manhunter is teleported to Earth from Mars by a scientist. Green Arrow becomes Robinson Crusoe and learns to build arrows on a desert island before building boxing glove arrows. Hawkman is an alien cop (or the reincarnation of an Egyptian pharaoh or a bunch of other origins) with an anti-grav metal pair of wings.

Shazam and Wonder Woman's origins are about the only ones that are "fantastical." The rest are pretty clearly early '60's sci-fi and very in keeping with the Marvel origins of the time. The only difference is Marvel used "radiation" as their McGuffin instead of other things. Marvel doesn't own the exclusive right to science-y sounding origins, and that's not why Marvel's characters have been more filmable. They've been more filmable because the people in charge have a better grip on how to bring that shit to the big screen. Warner's comic movie division seems to be run by people who don't like or understand the characters they are being asked to adapt.

Cosmic rays~~~~

Edit: To prove Haemish's point, both fantastic four movies were utter pieces of shit that treated the heroes as caricatures and not seriously in any way even though it was a science-y back story.

Haemish is spot-on. DC heroes aren't anymore un-filmable than Marvel and frankly, other than Spiderman, DC had a huge, huge advantage when the current round of comic book movies began. If you asked people to name Comic Book heroes back before the X-men movies people would say Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and maybe Spiderman. DC had name recognition and built-in audiences but they squandered it and have been afraid to take chances. Meanwhile Marvel is releasing a movie with a talking racoon and my hope is it'll make a lot of money. If it does it will be because, by and large, Marvel respects its own properties.

DC and WB? Not so much. They just don't get it. They saw a darker, grittier Batman make money and get critical acclaim and decided the smartest move was to make Superman dark and have his father tell him to avoid helping people because it'll suck if they find out what he can do. It's like these people don't even read their own comics! We'll see a Black Widow movie before Wonder Woman and that's just sad because everyone knows who Wonder Woman is but before Iron Man 2 only hardcore fans knew who Black Widow was.

Edit: If you want to see the ultimate proof of how DC properties can be done right, watch Arrow. Green Arrow is arguably one of their more ridiculous characters yet the writers of that show respect him and have figured out how to change him to fit the times yet still keep some of his core intact.

Nothing's absolutely unfilmable, though I'm not holding my breath for a great Ultra the Multi-Alien movie. But we've all had this discussion here before. To make a good film from certain starting points, you have to embrace certain kinds of premises. The DC Universe, if you're going the full Justice League, needs to not be scared of being bright and colorful and exaggerated. It has to be hyperreal--more than just a world where a man can fly, a world where gods can fight each other in the street (without thousands dying from every punch)  and yet still live in a recognizably contemporary human world. It needs to be fun.

Marvel's major cinematic custodians understand this better than DC's folks. But that's because DC's films are being made by people who are ashamed and confused about comic books.

I'd love to see Marvel put out a Squadron Supreme/Supreme Power movie right after DC releases the Justice League movie,.

Honestly, I suspect Antman is going to be the first major Marvel failure but that's more because of the turmoil about getting it made as opposed to the character. That said, the character holds very little interest to me and strikes me as more of a supporting character than a character that needs his own movie.

It wouldn't surprise me if they scrap the whole thing.

Sorry, I don't think you scrap a film that you've already invested that much money in making. 

Do we need to dig up the posts where people said, "Guardians of the Galaxy? What the fuck is that shit, Marvel's losing it"?

We're in the DC thread, but the point about any comic-book character is, "If you understand what's required, you can do it." Ant-Man can't be just a straight-up translation of comic-book Hank Pym because comic-book Hank Pym is a layered character who has acquired a distinctive personality sort of by accident over many many years. If I were looking fresh at the character, I'd go more with the comedic scumbag Ant-Man that Robert Kirkman created. I'm guessing Marvel is too and that's why they wanted Edgar Wright originally. That also fits Marvel's fairly canny understanding that their superhero movies need to have a range of models or feel.

DC/WB is so far away from understanding that, and so crippled in terms of the creative talent they recruited, that they'll never get that.

I do not buy this BS about Marvel characters being more realistic or filmable or acceptable to audiences at all.  Marvel has simply done a better job at taking this shit seriously.

I never said ant man couldn't work or that they would indeed scrap it but....

Even with the amount invested, the brand of marvel movies is so huge that if they don't feel like antman is working out the way they wanted to or that the difficulties they are having might translate into a sub-par film I have no doubt they would toss it in the can or shelve it for the next decade or so.

Saying the FF movies were dung means nothing - anything CAN be screwed up.  What we're discussing is how hard it is to get it right, not whether it can go wrong.

With greater power, comes greater difficulty making a story relatable.  If you don't agree with that basic idea that has been thrown out there over and over and over again by writers, I don't know what else to say.

Comic characters tend to have origins that reflect the science fiction stories of the days in which they are created.  That is something that is hard to argue against, and something supported by a number of documentaries on comics.  The science fiction under the core DC characters is the science fiction of the 1930s and 1940s - as most (but clearly not all) of their core characters are the ones that have been around since the earliest days.  The science fiction under the core Marvel characters are based upon the science of the 60s through 90s - as their core character base has expanded more than DCs.  Regardless, the advance of science between the 30s and 60s was huge.  Space Travel went from a fantastical concept to a reality.  When Superman hit the stands, TVs were something that regular folk thought they'd never see in their homes.  When Spider-man spun his first web, we were preparing to move to color TV.  Superman's earliest audience was celebrating advent of the mechanical icebox.  Spider-man's early audience was beginning to suspect that the freon in their fridge was destroying their environment.  The characters built to appeal to these audiences was drastically different.  The fans of Marvel were more sophistictaed.  Heck, even DC realized it when they revamped a number of their titles to make them more appealing to the sophisticated audience.  The Flash was revised so that instead of gaining his powers from inhaving vapors, he got them from a science expeirment gone wrong and Green Lantern's mystical power ring and lanterns became a high tech gizmo from aliens a few years before Marvel relased FF #1.  Heck, I'd argue that DC realizing their characters were unrelatable might have been a key factor in Marvel being so focused on making characters relatable to a 1960s audience...

If you don';t see why DC characters are less relatable and harder to turn into something modern audiences will accept on film, I guess we'll just disagree and you'll continue to blame the DC failures only on studios, and not on the greater difficulty in the task.

 :psyduck:

As a non-comic book guy, the best comic book related thing I've ever seen was the DCAU stuff (the Batman cartoon, Justice League, et. al.) So I don't really believe the premise that it's going to be so much harder to do a franchise thing here, because they've already done it once.

DC's problem seems to be finding the right people to actually execute things, not anything to do with the character stable.

The Justice League cartoon did such a good job with the "non-powered" heroes and actually making them interesting and relevant.

The characters don't need to be exactly as powerful as the are in the comics (which is partially a result of years of power creep). Superman needs to fly, be stronger than the other heroes they introduce, and have x-ray vision and heat vision. Between Superboy, Lois and Clark, and Smallville, there was a live action version of the character on TV almost consistently from 1988-2011 ('98-2000 being the only gap) that was not the super-powerful version. Even the Christopher Reeve version was at a decent power-level most of the time aside from when he was doing eye-rollingly bad shit like traveling back in time. Obviously they chose to play up his power-level in Man of Steel, because it looks cool in a cinematic sense, but it was by no means the only direction they could have gone with the character.

Edit: Also Thor and Hulk are two of the most powerful Marvel characters. What really crazy things have they done power-wise in the MCU?

Hulk had that awesome scene with Loki.

"Puny god"

Have to agree with Velorath on that point.   Supes and Thor are "powerful".   You know, guy wearing nothing but tights geting punched through buildings powerfull.  Guy moving cars with ease powerful.  Guy shrugging off heavy weapons fire powerful.  They don't need to be "Hey Vegeta, what does the scouter say about his power level?!?" powerful to get the point across that they stand in their own league in terms of strength / durability / etc.  It is when they cross the line between "I can engage in hand to hand combat with Fighter Jets" over into "I can lift and throw the Exxon Valdez" that things start to go wonky.

Marvel's characters weren't "more relatable" because of power levels. They were relatable because Stan Lee introduced real world problems that comic characters didn't normally have to deal with before. Things like a sick aunt, making the rent, love triangles, etc. Also, they went through some definitive evolution while DC's had been stuck mostly stuck in stasis. And as was mentioned, DC updated their origins to fit more with the contemporary times in the '60's. But none of that makes DC characters inherently less filmable. They just need the right touch. The guys they currently have in play to do that take the material somewhat less seriously than their Marvel counterparts and so the cinematic tone is "uneven" to say the least.

I would go so far as to say that if it wasn't for the DCAU, we wouldn't have shows like Arrow. I sure as hell didn't know who the fuck Green Arrow was before JLU.

DCAU was excellent.  I'd say that it was the best animated comic adaption we've seen... far better than anything Marvel has done.  However, if you tried to directly convert most of that work to film, even with an unlimited special effects budget, it would not be good.  What we accept in animation is a far cry from what we accept on film. 

Regardless, we're going in circles.  I'm not going to convince any-one that Superman and Martian Manhunter are far harder to adapt to movies than Spider-man and Hulk. 

Well if nothing else I think you're right about Martian Manhunter, but mostly because he's just really damn weird conceptually and has a stupid name on top of it.

He's a Shape Changer and a Telepath, if only those were brought to the big screen  :why_so_serious:

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1217291/Misc/charles_raven.jpg)

 :awesome_for_real:

(http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/0/5646/2106986-105933d1318406142-fuji-evil-pro-thats-joke-1305040347784.jpg)

fake edit: fuck it, never mind, I let a troll get to me

Eh, I can totally see a treatment of Martian Manhunter that works, but he's the character who would have to be the least like his comic-book incarnation. He can't be Superman but also with telepathy and shape-changing and the ability to pass through walls, etc.

Stealthy shape-changing alien w/limited telepathy who doesn't understand most of what he 'reads' in minds but who is very engaged by television and movies and adopts the persona of a tough film noir detective? That works. Then when he sees Superman on TV, thinks, "I could be a superhero!", but it's the comic-book idealization that he is emulating--sort of like the Iron Giant at the very end of that film. Makes him a bit childlike--he's always acting like what he sees in stories and fictions, and recoils when he comes up against how complex and ambiguous human beings really are. Basically riffing off of Starman/Brother From Another Planet/Man Who Fell to Earth template.

There's always a way to make a character work. It's just a question of in what way and at what length. This version of Martian Manhunter, for example, is not a tentpole character--he can't sustain a whole film. He's just a character for the major guys to rub off of or contrast against. Lots of DC characters are like that--Booster Gold is a good example. Only in comic-books or a one-off DCAU episode could that character sustain close attention, because he only makes sense as a thematic variation within a crowded superhero universe. But in a sparser cinematic world, you could have him as a bit character onscreen for five minutes, basically as a Captain Amazing in Mystery Men, against whom the more earnest, authentic or "real" superheroes are distinct.

Martian Manhunter could work, but he works best as the heart and soul of a thriving Justice League. Plus, he's the perfect vehicle for product placement of Oreos.

I never liked Martian Manhunter. All* the comics I read with him growing up had him at some point cowering in fear cause of fire.

* Maybe a slight exaggeration, maybe

DC released their movie dates.  Obviously not much is here, the only best guess I can give is Nov. 16th 2018 is Justice League.


Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - March 25th 2016
Untitled DC Film - August 5th 2016
Untitled DC Film - June 23rd 2017
Untitled DC Film - November 17th 2017
Untitled DC Film - March 23rd 2018
Untitled DC Film - July 27th 2018
Untitled WB Event Film - November 16th 2018
Untitled DC Film - April 5th 2019
Untitled DC Film - June 14th 2019
Untitled DC Film - April 3rd 2020
Untitled DC Film - June 19th 2020
Untitled WB Event Film - November 20th 2020

Oh ya.. biggest thing here.  DC flinched and move their date for BatVSupes.  So Cap 3 wins.   :awesome_for_real:

This is possibly the most precious thing I have seen in a while.  If even half these films get made I will be shocked.

If any of them aren't atrocious I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Ok rumor is that those WB "Event Films" are actually the two new Harry Potter Universe movies.

I... what... I don't even...

That would possibly make sense.  I vaguely recall hearing about movies being made based around "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. by Newt Scamander", one of the books Harry and crew had for their Care of Magical Creatures lessons.

So, they're trying to copy Marvel but have exactly 1 movie on there with a title? This isn't going to end well for them.

Yep this, it's a new trilogy even.  I guess Rowling needs another billion dollars.

It's just a scribble to get the hype train going, Marvel announces a 6 year plans so no they do too.  It literally means nothing and likely the entire thing is made up.  If you honestly believe they have even thgought of what movies to put on those dates I have a bridge to sell you.

The Rock is officially Black Adam.  Too bad he's in the DC Universe though.   :why_so_serious:

Heh.

Also, which one of you wrote this rehash of the DC and Marvel threads?
http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-signs-dc-comics-has-no-clue-how-to-make-superhero-movies_p2/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=fanpage&utm_campaign=new+article&wa_ibsrc=fanpage

Bastard, you owe us all a portion of your few hundred bucks.

Also, I hadn't read this quote before but Fuck you, Zach Snyder.

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that DC 'doesn't get it'.

That quote is probably posted in some marvel execs office and pointed to when some writer says they should go grimdark before that writer is smacked upside the head.

Seriously. That's embarassing. It's like someone being assigned to My Little Pony and saying, "We need to think about what happens to horses when they die, about glue factories and rendering plants and so on. That's realistic: horses die eventually."

Superman is the character you go grimdark on? Superman? The character that makes you think, "It's time for some REALISM, yeah, that's the ticket"?

New Line president Toby Emmerich spoke with Entertainment Weekly today, and he revealed why that is the case:.

"It feels to me like Shazam will have a tone unto itself. It's a DC comic, but it's not a Justice League character, and it's not a Marvel comic. The tone and the feeling of the movie will be different from the other range of comic book movies. (It) will have a sense of fun and a sense of humor. But the stakes have to be real."


Well that's actually better than it being part of the DC universe.

Stand alone shazam from dc with the rock being a charismatic villain? You know, there's a glimmer of hope there.

They must have watched Guardians of the Galaxy and had a light bulb flicker on.

Yeah, this. Trying to make Shazam grimdark will be a HUGE failure. They will completely destroy his goofy costume, they won't refer to him as the Big Red Cheese or anything of the sort. FFS, one of Shazam's main villains is a goddamn super-intelligent caterpillar. That shouldn't exist in the Man of Steel's world.

Also, that Cracked article nailed my problems with the DC Universe stuff in relation to the color palette. Gray. GRAY GRAY GRAY. DRAB AND BORING.

Though the current Shazam in New 52 is sort of grimdark (and he sucks) and DC's experimented before New 52 with a darker Shazam, and that sucked too. (And a darker Mr. Mind, actually, who sort of worked...)

DC announces slate of movies (https://games.yahoo.com/news/dcs-upcoming-movies-announced-162300042.html).

And this is really stupid.

2016: Suicide Squad (directed by David Ayer)
2017: Wonder Woman (starring Gal Gadot)
2017: Justice League Part One (directed by Zack Snyder)
2018 The Flash (starring Ezra Miller)
2018: Aquaman (starring Jason Momoa)
2019: Shazam
2019: Justice League Part Two (directed by Zack Snyder)
2020: Cyborg (starring Ray Fisher)
2020: Green Lantern

I really think separating the cinematic Flash from the TV Flash will be a bad idea, and I do not like the twerp they have to play the Flash. Also, Suicide Squad? Again, we already have that established in the TV-verse.

DC is getting jealous watching Marvel swim around in pools of cash.

I don't think separating tv and movie universe is that big of a deal.

The serial aspect is a bone marvel throw for geeks like us. Most movie goers watch films individually without caring about the collector or the next/last Batman or whatever.

DC is just throwing stuff together as fast as possible to compete against the MCU.  I mean they weren't even thinking about Justice League stuff til after Man of Steel.  Even with Arrow and Flash pulling in decent audiences they aren't going to take their time and work around all the TV stuff now.  Remember they also have Constantine and Gotham out there, let alone the Teen Titans thing in development.  Marvel took their time at the beginning and branched out afterwards with their TV stuff.  I don't think anyone is gonna do as well as they have so far.

 :facepalm:  DO NOT WANT

I like how they're doing Green Lantern last, presumably to give people that much more time to forget about the last attempt. Also I'm curious how quickly they'll change plans when Wonder Woman, Flash, and Aquaman all tank.

For reasons I don't understand I want these movies to fail and fail spectacularly. 

Well wonder woman will do well if only because it's so iconic and it will bring people out to see it.  Aquaman on the other hand is going to be el failure spectacular.

Is it just me, or do the tiara and earrings looks like they were (poorly) photoshopped?

--Dave

The pic is also from 2013, its from when she was first announced I think. 

Is it just me, or do the tiara and earrings looks like they were (poorly) photoshopped?

--Dave
[/quote]

Yeah, and the hair has been shopped as well.

Aquaman could succeed if they base on the plot on, "That time Batman and I foiled the evil super pirates!" and just make it totally awesome.

Instead it will probably feature a hamfisted environmental message and have Aquaman straight up murder a city through inaction to make a point before finally stopping the villain or something equally grimdark.

Jason Mamoa may also be big and all but can't act for shit and whether the studios believe it or not, the acting does kinda matter in super hero movies.

Yeah, probably an intentionally bad pic that I fell for.  This one (see below) is probably one that the studio put out, but she's still way to petite for what I think Wonder Woman should look like:

Is there any question that was photoshopped poorly?  That is not real.  I do not think there are any red/white/blue WW photos out there, yet.

The good news for me, personally, is that I have such low expectations I would not be shocked to see them exceeded.  The rumored storylines sound very DC - but they are the things about DC that I dislike.

The big question for me, at this stage especially, is that considering the general quality of DC's properties in TV shows how the hell have nearly all the movies been drek? I mean I know that a big part of it is the people making the movies really don't like the properties but there is actual success in a smaller format to point to, how can that not translate into people who actually like and respect the properties getting some traction with the producers for them?

Christopher Nolan.

The DC people believe grimdark is the way.  Even if Marvel proves time and time again that it isn't true.

It's like the parade of shitty mmo's that came out not wanting to do what wow did because, reasons.

The DC movies are terrible because they have terrible directors and script writers. Not because they are dark.

Wonder Woman being too thin is also no big deal.

It's not because they are dark it's because they are needlessly dark.  They have established a tone for their entire comic universe that matches only batman and are trying to force all the other characters into it. 

Agreed.

I also still believe that the power level of most DC characters is so extreme and the concepts so aged that they are harder to put on screen without looking ridiculous.  I was impressed in that aspect of MoS - the Superman action was a good translation of the action from the comics.  It was just the casting, writing, direction and gaffing that ruined the movie.

Casting ?

Yeah, I can't really see how you get to complain about casting in MoS, Dark Knight, or even Green Lantern for that matter.

Ryan Reynolds works as Deadpool, but making him green lantern was a bad idea.

Ryan Reynolds was fine, you can only do so much with a shitty script.

At the risk of provoking a geek-out, are DC characters really that much more powerful (on average) than Marvel characters?  Its hard to think about this "scientifically," but the way you phrase that above makes it sound like this is common knowledge. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2014/10/24/warner-bros-sets-sights-on-female-directors-for-wonder-woman/

Yes.  You can ask Google or more information, or review the posts on this thread that beat that horse to death.

They are more powerful in the comics but they don't really HAVE to be.  You can easily tone down power levels to fit better in a live action movie as simply as the green lantern can do anything but his power supply isnt nearly as infinite as it is in the comics so the bigger thing he does, the faster its gone.

Saying DC characters are gods on earth is true in the comics but that's the EASIEST fix for translating to movies if you have half a brain and an imagination.

IMO it's an outdated Silver Age perspective (approx. the 60s to mid 70s).  Take Flash and Quicksilver as examples. Flash is at least as fast as light speed, could travel back in time or through dimensions and, back in the Silver Age, while moving he was about as strong as Superman. Quicksilver I'd say was faster than sound, but not much faster. Nowadays Quicksilver is as fast as the writer wants him to be. I was stunned to see in X-Factor Quicksilver was basically holding a conversation with Havok in one location while his X-Factor teammates thought he was still in their building.

Flight, Invulnerability and Super-strength are like, a baseline for most DC heroes. Then they'll usually have extra powers on top of those.

Anyone one of those would be considered a power in it's own right on most Marvel heroes. You need like, the entire classic X-men team to equal one Superman and DC has like half a dozen of them at any given point.


The one exception would be Marvel's characters with the power bullshit. Scarlet Witch for example, whose powers are literally whatever the plot demands. Sometimes she can rewrite reality itself, changing people, places, genetics, history, everything, on a global scale. Other times she can't even unlock a door with her powers.


It's like Lakov said though, it's the easiest bit to actually change. The DCAU basically did it all the time, only really bringing characters up to their "true" power levels for dramatic effect in the story. Usually with some great consequence to the character.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53OyPYa7SEI

Current rumor, by the way, is that Green Lantern shows up only partway through the Justice League follow-up to Batman v Superman, and as a--get this, it will surprise you--a "dark and gritty" version who is an older Hal Jordan who has survived the destruction of Oa as the last of his kind.

I could *almost* see that working if it turns out that what destroyed Oa was Darkseid--e.g., GL shows up frantic and crazed about five minutes before Apokalips parademons start popping out of boom tubes all over Earth. Maybe if he gets killed right after that, even.

But geezus, odds of these guys getting any of this right are pretty low. The adolescent obsession with grimdarkery being grafted onto a group of characters who are normally much lighter and sunnier than their Marvel counterparts is just sort of queasy, as demonstrated amply by most of the "New 52" versions of the characters.

As I cba to find the other thread, this will do.

Aquaman - what happens when Dothraki overcome their fear of the sea and start riding seahorses:

(http://media.aintitcool.com/media/uploads/2015/harry/aquamanjasonmomoa_large.jpg)

Game of Zombie thrones the barbarian.....with fish.

Perfect choice and perfect look for the character. Looks a helluva lot better than the Wonder Woman.

I still think this casting is worse than Affleck as Duckman Batman.

Momoa has never impressed me.  He was fine in GoT, but I think they could have done better.  His Conan was not impressive.  He was one of the worst elements of Stargate Atlantis - which is really a damning statement.   Yeah, that is a fine look for Momoa as Aquaman, but man I wish they'd gone another way.

The ideal choice IMHO is obviously unavailable: Chris Helmsworth.  Regardless, I'd rather have seen Sean Bean, Liam Helmsworth,  Charlie Hunnam, Josh Holloway, Alexander Skarsgård, Chris Pine, or a few dozen other guys.  Some of those guys would need to bulk up, but if Evans can become Cap, I don't think we need to worry about that issue. They'd all bring different things to the character, obviously, too. 

All your choices are about as white bread as they come. I like that they cast a Pacific Islander in the role, as I think it fits what Aquaman should be better.

Yes, I realize Aquaman might as well have been called White Fish in the comics.

There are ways to be diverse without changing the core elements of a character.  I favor evolution of stories and passing of the torch to changing the essence of a character.  So, yeah, Arthur Curry should be Whitebread.

Nothing about Aquaman's origin suggests he HAS to be white.

Seriously. In fact, quite the opposite, especially the newer stuff that Peter David added.

There is absolutely no reason for that character to have to be a blond white guy except that he was a blond white guy in an era when virtually all comic-book characters were white people.

Occasionally there's a character who has a really specific origin that places them in a very specific social or historical setting. Jason Blood/the Demon probably needs to be a white dude because he's supposed to have been in Arthur's Camelot. But this is really very rare.

In the case of Aquaman, it's almost completely opposite--the guy actually OUGHT to be a Pacific Islander, the most maritime-oriented human culture in history. Or maybe a Phoencian/Mediterranean type if you want to go with that origin of Atlantis.

I agree with that for the most part.  There are few stories that I know of for Aquaman that have an integral element based upon him being whiter than an ocra's belly.  Had Curry's mother rolled up on the shores of Hawaii rather than Florida, Aquaman might have looked a lot like Momoa and they could have told the same stories for the most part (not that there was any chance of that in the era that Aquaman was designed).  However, that isn't Arthur Curry of DC lore.  It isn't the Aquaman from the comics.  If they're adapting that character, they should make that character.  This isn't a substitution of John Stewart for Hal Jordan.  That is fine with me.  I want them to evolve the story.  Don't retcon it.  

I just find the retconning to be offensive.  It feels like someone is saying, "Your culture/gender/preference/eye color is incapable of generating an intriguing character by itself, so we'll take a white man and morph it to give you a chance."  That is not the only way to look at it, but I see that element every time a switch like this takes place.  That bugs me.  I know a lot of people don't see that, but I do.

Regardless, this is far more about my objection to Momoa as an actor.  I think all of the actors I named would be good fits for Arthur Curry stories I've read or seen because they embody the character better.

Dude was great in Atlantis, in fact him joining is when the show started to not suck!

You're right. It's the movie Aquaman. You should go ahead and remove all thoughts that this will be the Aquaman from the comics, because it won't be. I'd think Superman killing Zod at the end of Man of Steel would have clued you in to that.

FWIW, Arrow is not the Green Arrow from the comics, nor is Flash the Barry Allen from the comics. Barry Allen isn't even blonde! It's an adaptation. As long as the adaptation doesn't stray too far from the core elements (and Aquaman being a white kid from Florida isn't even remotely a core element), it should be fine. It's not like they are trying to turn him into a kid from the ghettos of Chicago.

Hmmm.... no? Most people don't care about Aquaman enough to feel any attachments to him not being blond or white. And the few people that do just want him to be bad ass enough to cut off his own hand to save his son. Cause fuck it king of the seven motherfucking seas. And it really doesn't matter if he looks like an all american quarterback in the 50s or Somoan  because his "race" is Atlantean. I.E fictional race of pre-cave man humans that super-evolved to live under fucking water. His skin color should be grey, he should be hairless and partially blind. Of all the horrid examples of super heroes not being their origins because fuck it we need to pander for sales instead of simply writing better comics, this isn't it. I'll be more worried that a Superman vs Batman movie has Wonder Woman and Aquaman just showing up cause might as well call this justice league origins (which is a baaaaaaaaaaaad idea).

Differing opinions... but token changes bug me. 

yeah I dropped ultimate spiderman, Aquaman isn't spiderman...

As someone who had no idea who Arthur Curry was until 5 minute ago when I googled it to find out what the fuck you guys were talking about, this whole conversation is hysterical.

And very revealing.

 :oh_i_see:

I'm very disappointed that Aquaman doesn't have orange scales or green leggings and fins on his calves.

Next you're going to tell me they don't plan on using the Wonder Twins for any of the DC movies.

No, Wonder Woman is in the next movie...

They are probably concerned with having Gleek be too OP.

Imma just gonna leave this here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iQ_SuDLJvI

This is Aquaman we're talking about here. The guy for who they have always had to invent excuses why Superman, or Batman, or Wonder Woman, or the Justice League janitor was too busy to deal with things so he had an excuse to exist. His race is the *least* of things they need to change for him not to be a joke. Seriously, it's like the stupidest thing to get worked up over compared to "Why did they write him into the story to begin with?"

--Dave

Miles Morales would be an example of something I do not really object to seeing: A new character taking a name and a role previously occupied by another character.  When it gets too heavy handed it really falls more in the camp of token changes, but I didn't feel Morales hit that zone. 

Of course, I should probably just get over it because people might characterize Sam Jackson as Fury as the result of token changes, and there is no room to criticize anything that gives us more SLJ.

I'll just keep my focus on Momoa being a bad actor.

Who cares really?  It's fucking Aquaman. 

(http://cdn.themetapicture.com/media/funny-Aquaman-worst-enemy-sea-fish.jpg)

Remember when I said "until they take themselves seriously" in the Marvel thread?  This sort of dissection is what I was talking about.

Aquaman was comic relief in the "batman the brave and the bold" ffs.

I'm not quite sure why Aquaman = stupid joke settled in as hard as it did. Character was a perfectly ho-hum Silver Age guy, no more ridiculous than Hawkman, which is to say somewhat ridiculous. I think the main thing that underwater guys run into as a problem is when they're saddled with "will die if out of water for a while" weaknesses, or if there are strongmen characters like Superman who can move through water just as well as the underwater guy so who needs the underwater guy. That's Aquaman's problem; Namor over at Marvel never had to deal with an above-water rival who could operate just as well below the sea.

So the silliness of Aquaman mostly came because his writers made him a specialist who could only deal really well with stuff that was underwater and he worked with guys who could do that as well as he could.

But after the Silver Age, some reasonably decent work was done to give him more a personality and more of a distinctive mythos--the problem there was that he was also always bland compared to Namor. Including just being a generic blond white guy.

So considering all that, if you're going to put him in ANYTHING, you have to fiddle with him. In Batman Brave and the Bold that means making him silly fun. In grimdark Zack Snyder that means making him a Pacific Islander. These moves all make good sense. I cannot imagine anyone sensibly being attached to generic blond white Silver Age Aquaman who wears orange fish scales and dies an hour after he's out of water.

I'd hate to have to write this movie and put Aquaman in somehow.  Especially in this grimngritty world.  I'd imagine they'll make him a generic strong guy and then there's THAT ONE SCENE that makes him bad-ass, when he releases the kraken or some shit.

As someone upthread said, we didn't have to him.  What about Martian Manhunter?  He's another strong guy, but has a couple of abilities that would complement the team.  He and Bats could talk strategy and he can do the shapechangey stuff to infiltrate the enemy base and use telepathy, etc.  I guess MM is too hard for audience to understand?

I'm not saying it can't be done, but the writers will really have their hands full making Aquaman an equal member of the team.  And I haven't seen good writing from the DC Universe yet.

I think it comes down to "almost everybody has heard the name Aquaman and knows he's in the Justice League; the Martian Manhunter is much more obscure in relative terms and requires much more backstory/setup".

I think you can pretty much bet that Snyder's Aquaman will be played like he's Khal Drogo of the Seas--probably ride a whale, fuck shit up with a trident, makes tidal waves, pours molten metal over the Joker's head, and so on.

I would imagine they'll follow the Peter David Aquaman characterization - the one who got his fucking hand chewed off by piranha and replaced with a hook. He was a seriously pissed off underwater king with a chip on his shoulder.

I think that was the version they went with in Justice League Unlimited.  Gave us this quote:

Dr. Fate: Solomon Grundy's grave is empty.
Aquaman: Tell me where to find those responsible. Then dig more graves.

Aquaman probably has half decent name recognition, but I'm not sure if all that many normal people even know what a justice league is.

How many people watched JLU ?

The percentage of Americans that do not know that Aquaman is part of the same 'team' as Superman, Batman and Wonderwoman is likely very small - and the percentage of people that are going to choose to see the film (as opposed to the ones that refuse to see it or get dragged to it) that do not know is a fraction of that percentage. They may not have known the name "Justice League", but if you asked people to name the heroes on Superman's team, a lot of people would get to Aquaman before running out of names (although there are a lot that would put Marvel heroes on the list, too).

I doubt a majority of Americans even know that there is a team.

I think a lot of people over 40 remember the Super Friends, who also called themselves The Justice League in the show.

In fact, I'd wager that more people for that reason would vaguely remember Apache Chief more than the Martian Manhunter.

Google told me Neilsen said 500k. But I guess that will have been ticking up on repeats since then.

So a range of one in 350 to 700 people in America, assuming 500k is the min and we're generous and say it is twice that.

If you're assuming that the only people that know what the Justice League are would be the people that watched JLU, you're missing how broad of an exposure there is. 
(http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111021060409/bigbangtheory/images/thumb/b/b5/7972737a4ddcbe0eda.jpg/484px-7972737a4ddcbe0eda.jpg)
There are so many references to DC heroes and the justice league in TV, books, video games, movies, and other pop culture conduits...  It is a concept that dates back to 1940.  It has filtered into the American consciousness through countless channels since before any of us reading this thread were born.

I'm not saying there are not people that will ask if Spider-man will be in the Justice League movie.  There are a lot of people that only have a very superficial knowledge of what the Justice League is ... but there are very few that do not have that superficial knowledge.

Objection, your honor--supposition.

Aquaman was an entire long running plot point on Entourage, as well.

i am very ashamed that I know that.

Sustained.


I'm going on a ruling of ipso facto jgsugden.

I'd be happy to stipulate that JLU was as watched by only 10% of people who have a clue what Justice League is.

The thing about all those "conduits" is that you look down them and we're the people at the end of basically all of them.

What a sad commentary on our lives.

This is one occasion where I'll side with jgu.  Even among my non geek friends there is some knowledge of Aquaman and his being part of the Justice League.  As mentioned this is in no small part to The Superfriends in the 70s.

They may not think about it or know that he has some weird secret identity, but knowing he's a character is a low enough bar to include him.

Ain't nobody outside of comics geeks and JLU watchers who know who the hell Martian Manhunter is.  Hell when I first saw JLU I wondered who the green guy was and I'm the third biggest geek I know IRL.  



Why is it sad?  Because filling your head with sports, celebrity and pop trivia is somehow a more noble pursuit?  It just because it's more socially accepted?

Are we really arguing that people don't know who fucking Aquaman is? Really? Or that he has more or less name recognition than Martian Manhunter?

Neither of these things should be questioned by any intelligent person on this board.

We'll argue about anything.

No we won't, we'll only argue with good reason.

- and Martian Manhunter took a large bump up in name recognition when he was on Smallville.  Still on the obscure side, but prior to Thor being released, I'd bet more people knew about Martian Manhunter than Hawkeye.

You're wrong but thanks for playing.

 :facepalm:

I'm afraid I have to second that.

Smallville? Seriously? By that logic the whole country knows who Dr. Fate is now.

(https://freakoffandom.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/gog_9.png)

no, I'm sure you're right. The people who are exposed to Martian Manhunter on Smallville all knew who he was before then. It isn't like they marketed that show two teen girls who had never read a comic before.

And clearly all their marketing worked, making Smallville a ratings powerhouse at #125 (out of 142 network shows) in Season 6 when the Martian Manhunter showed up.

Did he appear on Lois and Clark?  :grin:

(http://www.brainfreeze.be/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/lois-and-clark.jpg)

HG Wells did.

Maybe DC should put him in the movie.  They're certainly putting him in The Flash.

 :why_so_serious:

Well Played.

The "Star Lord?" guy I know.

Who the hell is Dr. Fate?

(http://i.imgur.com/zgFX4k7.jpg?1)

(http://i.imgur.com/QwpzHqu.jpg?fb)

Not only is that the joke, the only reason I know Dr Fate is due to The Books of Magic.  Which made him seem really, really awesome.

I had no idea he was actually a JLA type until Smallville.

Dr. Fate was in Brave and Bold?  Shit I need to find that. 

As an aside, my friend knows Spidey, Lord of the Rings, etc. but he had no idea who Ant-Man was.  I'll ask him about Aquaman, but I bet he knows him.

GOTG proved you need no name recognition at all for a success; you do have to have a good movie and marketing though.

And a raccoon and a tree.

In other words, then, DC is fucked?

DC is fucked and will always be fucked. For one simple reason, the owner of the property neither likes nor understands their property.

http://www.blastr.com/2015-3-4/warner-bros-ceo-says-dcs-movie-slate-will-be-edgier-marvel (http://www.blastr.com/2015-3-4/warner-bros-ceo-says-dcs-movie-slate-will-be-edgier-marvel)

And that is why the DC movies are likely to suck, or at least be weaker movies than the Marvel ones. Because their execs think "EDGIER" is some kind of statement of quality.

Superman was so much better grimdark .

I blame this on Christopher Nolan and the new 52. How can one trilogy kill any hope for DC? Well for the simple fact that Nolan never intended to do Batman. Sure he looks like Batman, has a few Batman characters, but he never wanted to make a movie about Batman. He wanted to make a crime movie substituting maverick FBI agent for the cape crusader. Which isn't a bad thing. Batman is a detective. Batman confronts organized crime and has to deal with murderous psychotics. Batman Begins was a clumsy half attempt at writing batman but it was ultimately forgettable. The Nolan films start with Dark Knight and sadly that's where the poison starts. From than on you must be "dark" and "serious" to be a superhero film or live action. And thats funny since MARVEL disproves that by a large amount. But DC is attempt at being like Marvel looks like...

(http://www.blogcdn.com/blog.moviefone.com/media/2011/06/gl-horiz-fistsout-keyart.jpg)

I like Man of Steel mostly because its a break from the Returns and yeah I want to see Superman punch things. But the tone... everything that isn't superman punching things is flat. They don't want to get writers and I don't think DC has people who can "do" the big powerful superheroes and make us like them the way we do in other mediums. And I place the blame mostly on...

The New 52. The great butcher of DC comics, the wondering eater of all that is half decent and salvageable. When someone decides to write a Iron Man or Thor or Cap story they have a wealth of stories, which is the same for DC except DC put its new shiny abomination upfront. Which is a problem because film writers are lazy. Because film writers are more likely to borrow elements from the most recent story lines, if not straight rip them, than any other group of writers. And Marvel god bless them isolated half their fuck stupid in the Ultimate Universe. Which means while the ultimate universe "can" be considered the more "hip and current and new and what are the kids who buy movie tickets are reading" it doesn't have to taint the entire script because someone can hand the poor monkeys that write scripts something from the main 616 universe that is equally as current and not get something fuck stupid like Amazing Spiderman (which was all Ultimate Universe).

 Very important difference. DC on the other hand, just has 52. Only has 52. A lazy writer, with all the studio pressure of telling a relevant story will reach for a new 52 comic and declare himself "caught up". You can see this in there (DC's) animated movies, while being mosttly been mediocre to pointless in the past are now actively sucking in a way only possible if you literally hired monkeys. You want to see what a live action Justice League could possible look like check out this gem.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Justice_League-War.jpg)

Um, ok.

Sure.

Christopher Nolan.

Right.

I still like Red Hood animated movie.  :awesome_for_real:

So I'm supposed to want a movie about Bat Mite? I'm confused now.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/superman-batman-dcs-real-battle-792190

Oh, I am sooo surprised.   :oh_i_see:

Seriously, you don't announce all these movies and shit and get them going without knowing what the fuck is going on.

LOL on the "Marvel hired untested people like Joss Whedon and James Gunn but we're going with real filmmakers..."  line. That's rich.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrGrOK8oZG8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrGrOK8oZG8)

Stand up night at DC:

http://www.blastr.com/2015-6-3/we-have-great-strategy-warner-bros-exec-addresses-approach-dc-moviessort (http://www.blastr.com/2015-6-3/we-have-great-strategy-warner-bros-exec-addresses-approach-dc-moviessort)

Silverman’s father and brother run L.A.’s BeSpoke Furniture. "My brother made the table out of scripts," he says. "It’s his latest thing."

Well, that's pretty discouraging.

WTF does "a movie about superheroes" mean?  Marvel has a huge sign pointing to money that says "Superhero movies."  There is no reason to shoot yourself in the foot just to be different.  My only thought on this is that they know they can't compete with Marvel so they might as well go a different direction.  However, when your show runners and executives don't even seem to like what genre they are mixed up in, you are going to be screwed either way.

Grimdark worked for Batman because he was always the most morally sketchy of the Justice League (just like it works for Daredevil in the MCU). But grimdark Superman is stupid as hell, and grimdark Aquaman is just fucking goofy.

--Dave

Peter David's long run on Aquaman could be pretty grimdark at times and is considered by many to be the best run of Aquaman. Also Batman tends to have a pretty strong moral code. Wonder Woman is much more likely to intentionally kill somebody for instance. Batman just has the darker backstory.

And all the Bat-fuck insane villains.

Grimdark Superman is fucking insane. Unless you want to do an alternate timeline I guess, a Red Son movie could be pretty cool.

Aquaman can work, there's definitely form there in the storylines, I don't think Wonderwoman really works as Grimdark though. She has moral conflicts but it's less about 'should I kill this man?' and more the conflict between her Greek/warrior culture values and modern society, imo.

Batman works very well thematically with it but even Nolan had him sticking to his moral code regarding killing and despite the tone of the movies they maintained that basic message. I'd argue in terms of morality, with the current set up, Batman is shaping up to be the moral compass of the JL and Superman is the pragmatic 'what must be done' guy. Which is thematically... odd.

He'd make a good politician with his ability to not answer questions directly.

99% of people think of Aquaman as a fruity guy who talks to a Beluga Whale. I really have trouble seeing it work as grimdark.

The thing about DC is that even though they've been on the grimdark path for decades now the general public still mostly sees their heroes as the goofy-as-fuck versions. Aquaman rides around on a whale, Green Lantern forms a giant ping-pong paddle to smack a boxing-glove-shaped missile back at someone, Wonder Woman rides around in an invisible plane and transforms into WW from her alter-ego by spinning in place....

I think the Marvel movies could be a bit more serious - I don't mean grim and dark but maybe not have every character have superhuman quipping ability as an unofficial superpower and have the movies be about something other than punching robots. But I'd be shocked if DC/Warner can pull that off. I expect the movies to be even more superficial and about even less than the Marvel films.

99% of people don't think of Aquaman at all. I don't know why this isn't getting through to people here except that we all have a bad tendency to think we're "people". If you think of Aquaman as a guy who rides a seahorse and is kind of fruity and says, "With my telepathic powers, I summon the creatures of the deep!", you are 45-60 years old and watched a lot of cartoons. And you probably don't have altogether bad feelings about those cartoons (Aquaman solo and in the Super Friends). If you're younger and Aquaman means something to you, it's because of camp treatments of that version or maybe because you saw the Dini DC cartoons or Batman Brave and the Bold, which is a pretty small number of people.

Besides Superman and Batman, all of these characters are totally plastic as far as the larger audience is concerned. They can be played any which way a studio likes--grimdark, silly, fun-adventurous--and as long as it's done well, the vast majority of the potential audience will be happy. If the small subset of people who have strong views about these characters doesn't like it, they can go home and sit in a dark corner, it won't matter. It's only when the audience is kind of 'meh' about something that the complaints of people who really know the characters starts to reverberate and take hold among a larger audience.

So you think 1 in 100 in the US have an idea who Aquaman is?  Or is that supposed to be 1% of the world population?

I think you're vastly underestimating people's recognition of Aquaman.

If you were talking about Martian Manhunter then sure. But Aquaman has been a comics staple forever, has appeared in widely watched cartoons, etc. I mean people still know who the Wonder Twins are.

Everyone knows that Wonder Woman has a magic lasso and an invisible jet. How do they know that? She had a minor hit TV show in the 70s that we still have a cultural memory of somehow.

As movies are announced people who don't know are told by people who do, or look things up online. If you look for "aquaman video" on Google the first two results are from the old cartoon.

Everyone knows who Aquaman is, it's Namor that is only known by us dorks.

People may know who he is generally (the name is kind of a giveaway!) but the idea that 99% have a particular idea of him that is relatively immobile or that will resist redefinition is just wrong. Hell, it's not even true for characters that we think are incredibly well known at high levels of specificity. Look at Batman: you have the campy TV show, the less campy but still campy Burton movies, and the grimdark not-campy Nolan movies, and probably some of the audience for any one of those had seen and liked the other two.

http://www.tracking-board.com/exclusive-warner-bros-developing-booster-goldblue-beetle-movie-with-greg-berlanti-helming/ (http://www.tracking-board.com/exclusive-warner-bros-developing-booster-goldblue-beetle-movie-with-greg-berlanti-helming/)

The people behind the TV series are reportedly looking into this one - which is odd considering they were denied access to both of these characters recently for their TV works.

Aquaman will suck. Because they hired Namor to play the part. And Namor is a hundred times better - but not in an Aquaman movie.


I'm looking forward to the Preacher tv series though... if you count that as DC.

For those curious: The TNT TV Series based on Teen Titians has been Terminated.

http://tvline.com/2016/01/07/tnt-titans-cancelled-pilot/#more-672138 (http://tvline.com/2016/01/07/tnt-titans-cancelled-pilot/#more-672138)

It wasn't set in the DCU, but it was discussed here earlier.

I loved Aquaman in the brave and the bold. He was awesome!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibDtsl92QWk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibDtsl92QWk)

Brave and the Bold was a criminally underrated show.

http://www.blastr.com/2016-5-18/wake-batman-v-superman-warner-bros-restructures-control-dc-film-universe (http://www.blastr.com/2016-5-18/wake-batman-v-superman-warner-bros-restructures-control-dc-film-universe)

Perhaps a good first step. Too bad it was there 7000th step rather than their first.

Even if I'm not a fan of the CW series because I find them soap-opraish, it's definitely a step in the right direction. Seems they're doing it for all their studios, though.


Woah.. who'd have thought that people who care about projects might produce better results than guys only concerned about marketing metrics. I only hope this succeeds to see it shift the greater Hollywood industry to a more creative path again and get off the remake line.

That's one of the things Marvel got right that Warners really really didn't fucking understand. They just saw "SUPERHERO GENRE MAKES BUH-BUH-BILLIONS!" and thought any fuckhead suit could run the show. Hence the reason a superhero-hating twat like David Goyer continues to be hired to do superheroes. Turns out having some sympathy with the genre actually makes genre movies that are more palatable to that genre's fans. Who knew?

Hey at least CW is doing a 4 way crossover event next season.  That's pretty much better than the DC movies right there.