Jump to content

DCEU: The Wings of Liberty Have Lost Some Feathers


JGP

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

 I think that WB do still have problems with how they make movies and how much interference they put in.

It's possible, but there were rumours of backroom rejigging after BvS which this will hopefully already be affected by, which gave Geoff Johns greater story control and supposedly streamlined the whole process. Geoff Johns is the guy who managed to make a worthwhile story (despite 'Superboy punched the universe') out of Infinite Crisis, where he had to weave together several years of multi-stranded, often ropey buildup and tie it into a singular event that wrapped it all up, appealed to fresh readers as a standalone, and harked back to Crisis on Infinite Earths, so if anyone can sort out the problems here, it's him.

I also find it interesting that there is more than a year between this film and the next one, Aquaman- suggests that they're deliberately taking a pause to regroup (which won't necessarily help this but I hope they've already had things in mind as they make it).

Like, I'm definitely not totally convinced that this isn't gonna be a mess, but I'm hopeful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:



Like, I'm definitely not totally convinced that this isn't gonna be a mess, but I'm hopeful.

It's still one where I'll await reviews before going into it. So far the DCEU reviews have been on the money - if it's shit it tends to be and if it's good it's fun. I wish Marvel reviews were more reliable in this sense.

I think the other thing to keep in mind with Geoff Johns is that he's a good franchise builder. People have their opinions about some of his storytelling but his track record with comics is very strong. He turned Green Lantern from a struggling solo title into 4 plus comics that at one point were the best selling titles (although I've heard the same was true of Kyle Rayner's adventures under Ron Marz at one point) with genuinely well-received and successful "events". He had similar success with Flash and Aquaman. I realise it's a different thing getting films to work but he seems like a good person to try out. He may not be turning out Dark Knight trilogies but his films could easily be as entertaining and fun as the MCU

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, red snow said:

It's still one where I'll await reviews before going into it. So far the DCEU reviews have been on the money - if it's shit it tends to be and if it's good it's fun. I wish Marvel reviews were more reliable in this sense.

I think the other thing to keep in mind with Geoff Johns is that he's a good franchise builder. People have their opinions about some of his storytelling but his track record with comics is very strong. He turned Green Lantern from a struggling solo title into 4 plus comics that at one point were the best selling titles (although I've heard the same was true of Kyle Rayner's adventures under Ron Marz at one point) with genuinely well-received and successful "events". He had similar success with Flash and Aquaman. I realise it's a different thing getting films to work but he seems like a good person to try out. He may not be turning out Dark Knight trilogies but his films could easily be as entertaining and fun as the MCU

 

Is there anything in his film career that gives you hope he is a good franchise builder? WW was good but he seems very early on in his career and his work on the Green Lantern film hardly inspires confidence. 

I guess you could compare him to his mate Jeph Loeb, who's batman comics I really love, he has on the whole done a good job with his marvel work, but still manages to churn out an Iron Fist (shite)  and Legion (great) in the same year. Its really hard to tell where responsibility lays on these projects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Is there anything in his film career that gives you hope he is a good franchise builder? WW was good but he seems very early on in his career and his work on the Green Lantern film hardly inspires confidence. 

I guess you could compare him to his mate Jeph Loeb, who's batman comics I really love, he has on the whole done a good job with his marvel work, but still manages to churn out an Iron Fist (shite)  and Legion (great) in the same year. Its really hard to tell where responsibility lays on these projects.

Odd, I thought I had stressed that comics success don't translate to film success but on a re-read I hadn't. That's an obvious caveat I should have included. If he can translate those skills to films it'll be pretty promising. We do need to see more films with his involvement before we know whether this is the case.

The good thing about Jeph Loeb is that his work in TV prevents him from writing any more terrible Marvel comics. I think Loeb's role is to have an idea for how he wants a show to turn out and then selects the right people for the job. He's not that involved beyond that and in the examples you mention it's clear that the quality of the showrunner determines the quality of the show (eg guy who made "Fargo" makes a great "legion" show,while the guy who did the last few seasons of "dexter" made a mediocre/poor "iron fist"). I guess we can still lay blame at Loeb's feet for that - especially if "inhumans" is bad because it means he's hired a bad creator twice. In a similar vein I guess Johns has to have an idea of what he wants "wonder woman" etc to be like and then needs to be involved in hiring a director that brings that idea to life. Using a comics analogy i guess Loeb/Johns are more like Editors. They are responsible for hiring the talent but the talent is responsible for the product. If the talent continually makes poor product then the editor is to blame for bad hiring choices. But I could be talking out my ass as I have no direct experience in either media :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, red snow said:

Odd, I thought I had stressed that comics success don't translate to film success but on a re-read I hadn't. That's an obvious caveat I should have included. If he can translate those skills to films it'll be pretty promising. We do need to see more films with his involvement before we know whether this is the case.

 

Sorry yes, you did make that point, but really I think its worth concentrating on Johns lack of experience. So far he hasn't really proved himself at all, and outside of WW most of WB's DC properties seem to be in a perpetual state of chaos. The problems around Batman are deeply worrying.

As for Exec Producers role, who knows. I'm sure there are plenty of cooks getting their point of view in here, and I don't think it ever purely comes down to hiring the right creative team. If InHumans is bad (and it almost certainly is) then there are probably a ton of political and commercial reasons why things have gone the way they have. Iron Fist by all accounts was rushed out and failed because of that, who is to blame for that? Loeb?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/07/2017 at 8:09 AM, Bastard of Boston said:

News from panel: Flash: Flashpoint, Suicide Squad 2, The Batman, Aquaman, Justice League Dark, and Green Lantern Corp. are the next films on the slate. Affleck denied rumors that he's leaving. They also confirmed Wonder Woman 2 is a go.

Some people speculating that Supergirl is going to be in this not Superman. There are a few good reasons that Supergirl would be good for this. But also WB/DC could totally take the opportunity to mess with Disney/Marvel. Kara Danvers shows up in the DCEU well before Carol Danvers gets introduced in the MCU. Carol Danvers' Captain Marvel is basically Marvel's version of Supergirl. Super girls is all OP and swings in to save the day (more on that next) the way Marvel is perhaps planning with Avengers 4. Dampens the hype for Captain Marvel just as Marvel is trying to build it up because she starts looking like a copy-paste of Supergirl. If the DCEU brings in Supergirl, will Marvel have to seriously think of changing Captain Marvel's family name in the very least? It was a dick move by Marvel to name her Danvers in the first place, WTF were they thinking?

Re, a Kryptonian (Supergirl or Superman) possibly swooping in to save the day, and news headlines saying "World Without Hope". Did we not just see a Wonder Woman solo movie a month ago? Is she not a god of the Greek Pantheon, daughter of Zeus? She's basically equal in power and invulnerability (only a god can kill another god) to Superman without the Kryptonite weakness, and she's a "native" of earth, if Greek gods can be said to be such. JL doesn't need a Kryptonian, and the World has more than enough hope with Wonder Woman even if she does spend a lot of time cleaning statues of family members in the Louvre.

Seems to me Wonder Woman can handle Steppenwolf by herself and she just needs the rest of the JL crew to manage the minions so they don't get in the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Sorry yes, you did make that point, but really I think its worth concentrating on Johns lack of experience. So far he hasn't really proved himself at all, and outside of WW most of WB's DC properties seem to be in a perpetual state of chaos. The problems around Batman are deeply worrying.

 

No need to apologise - I really didn't point out his lack of film experience, so you were right.

Johns did start out in film - I think he was an understudy/assistant to superman director Richard Donner. But I guess the implication was he didn't take off there or he wouldn't have wound up in comics. Now he's taken a circular route back. So I think his track record so far is Wonder Woman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the 'it's-not-Superman-after-all' twist: I've not seen the Supergirl suggestion before but I have seen the Green Lantern suggestion, among others. It's not gonna happen. It's Superman.

There is no way Superman isn't in this movie. On the one hand, you have a possibly-cool twist to the story which does nothing for Warner Brothers except possibly be cool. On the other, you have the single biggest superhero property in history which sells tickets, toys, tie-ins and gets media hype.

It's Superman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Casting Jason Momoa as Auqaman seems like one of the worst castings ever made. I'm not a DC fan so I don't know much about Auqaman but everything shown about Momoa's Auqaman seems like Momoa is playing himself not Auqaman. Plus Momoa is not a good actor nor is his personality appealing in any way IMO. Someone said that he would have been a great Lobo(whoever that is)

Cyborg is ugh. I had a long conversation with a DC fan and they were telling me about how they didn't like Cyborg being a JL member and how he didn't like the character and I can see why. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mormont said:

On the 'it's-not-Superman-after-all' twist: I've not seen the Supergirl suggestion before but I have seen the Green Lantern suggestion, among others. It's not gonna happen. It's Superman.

There is no way Superman isn't in this movie. On the one hand, you have a possibly-cool twist to the story which does nothing for Warner Brothers except possibly be cool. On the other, you have the single biggest superhero property in history which sells tickets, toys, tie-ins and gets media hype.

It's Superman.



I think there's no doubt that Superman is in this movie even if we hadn't already seen him in set photos or heard about the current issues where they're having to digitally edit his mustache out of reshoots because his Mission Impossible contract says he has to have it. But, although I'm fairly sure it is, it doesn't necessarily  mean the person at the end of the trailer is him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, mormont said:

On the 'it's-not-Superman-after-all' twist: I've not seen the Supergirl suggestion before but I have seen the Green Lantern suggestion, among others. It's not gonna happen. It's Superman.

There is no way Superman isn't in this movie. On the one hand, you have a possibly-cool twist to the story which does nothing for Warner Brothers except possibly be cool. On the other, you have the single biggest superhero property in history which sells tickets, toys, tie-ins and gets media hype.

It's Superman.

The hologram Batfleck is looking at with a red cape fluttering exposes a right leg (~1:40 in the trailer), which looks like it may be bare above the knee (but tattooed?) with almost knee high boots, and a shape that looks more female than male.

Just because Superman is in doesn't mean Supergirl is out, of course.

While the Supergirl TV show might not be winning a lot of fans, it has normalised the idea of Supergirl and Superman operating together. Personally withing the DCEU I would quite like it if Supergirl is introduced at the time of her first arrival on Earth, 20 something years too late and still being a young teen.

Can't really do a young Clarke Smallville movie, so why not do the next best thing and do a young Supergirl version?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hologram or no, if Superman is in this movie (and we know he is), then he is the big reveal, the guy who saves the day. Having Superman be in the movie but Supergirl be the big reveal, the one that Alfred prays hasn't come too late? Does that really seem likely to anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The advertising would be pretty false in terms of the posters if Superman wasn't the one returning in the final act. I'm not ruling out Green Lantern or possibly even supergirl (she could be a Joss Whedon reshoot insertion) but the film will have screwed up if Superman is not the last minute saviour.

Did anyone see the pictures of Cavill at the polo event he was at during comic-con? That "moustache" would be murder to regrow.

I think they are just trying to keep a non-secret, secret. Maybe outside of social media there are some people thinking Superman isn't in the film/is still dead? They'll get a nice surprise when they watch it. Although maybe it's going to be Luke Skywalker levels of screentime?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, red snow said:

Did anyone see the pictures of Cavill at the polo event he was at during comic-con? That "moustache" would be murder to regrow.

Apparently the stache is for a role Cavill is playing in the new Mission Impossible movie. It's causing some issues for the reshoot scenes that Whedon has been brought onboard for.

http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/justice-league/266623/justice-league-and-hollywoods-era-of-major-reshoots?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Apparently the stache is for a role Cavill is playing in the new Mission Impossible movie. It's causing some issues for the reshoot scenes that Whedon has been brought onboard for.

http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/justice-league/266623/justice-league-and-hollywoods-era-of-major-reshoots?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

I've read a few comments on the humour of how a franchise famed for fake moustaches are having such an issue with Cavill maybe having to get rid of his 'tash for Justice League reshoots.

Cavill showed a great sense of humour in responding to this. Seems like a social media storm in a teacup but at least it gave us some funny photos and the phrase "Justache League"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I re-watched Wonder Woman last night, and that thread is closed, so just a quick question. What sword did Diana use in BvS, when her original sword was destroyed by Ares? And I think her shield was different, too, now that I think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...