DCEU: Enter the Snyderverse

[Jaxom 1974]

2 hours ago, Rhom said:

Feels unnecessary to me.  Doesn’t feel “organic.”  Almost more like they’re doing it to grab headlines than because it’s a natural extension of the Superman Ethos.

But that may be my disillusionment with DC talking.  I can just see the boardroom on this “Marvel’s biggest success was Black Panther.  You know what we should do... here’s a crazy idea:  Superman... but he’s black.”  I just don’t think it’s all that crazy to imagine a whiteboard in a conference room somewhere that says “Needs more blacks” circled in bright red.

Hopefully I’m wrong.

You know, I'm going to admit to struggling a little initially with the concept of a black Kal-El. Because that's what this is about, not a black Superman. There is plenty of black Supermen.  

But why did I struggle? I have zero issues with exploration of iconic characters in different ways. That's the beauty of some of these characters.  But just altering a character mid point of their story and change their gender or race...it seemed...odd...can it be done organically? Probably? But organically that it makes sense? Maybe? 

There is zero reason to think of Krypton as anything but a diverse planetary landscape.  The idea that black, brown, or green skinned people from another planet, along with the white skin? Where is the issue?  There isn't one.  

But then thinking about it, in terms of a movie, a black Kal-El comes to Earth in the exact same manner as the original.  Tell that story. Examine that idea in a movie.  How that man becomes Superman in America...that's a tale worth telling.  Especially in the right hands.  Because it could be a brilliant deconstruction of what Superman means to people. 

In the movies, it can be a one off, or the start of something more. It doesn't mean Henry Cavill can't still be Kal-El also in other DCEU movies.  If it was a comic, it would simply be an Elseworlds story most like, and seeing that some of those are brilliant deconstructions of established ideas, see Red Son, then that's for the good too. 

Bottom line, tell me a good story.  Make me think and expand my horizons.  This isn't an issue. 

[Rhom]

18 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Bottom line, tell me a good story.  Make me think and expand my horizons.  This isn't an issue. 

Sure... but do you have faith that is what is really driving the folks at the DC cinematic group to push for this? 

[Jaxom 1974]

15 minutes ago, Rhom said:

Sure... but do you have faith that is what is really driving the folks at the DC cinematic group to push for this? 

At this exact moment in time, given some of the other forces at play out there? No. Likely not.  But at the same time, this thinly veiled backlash happens whether this is brought up 2 years ago or 2 years from now. 

It's not a prime look that the DC movie peeps seem to be reactionary, rather than proactive on this. But tell a good story. That's all they have right now.  The right people, in the right place, making the right story. 

But the controversy over a black Kal-El? There really isn't one.

[DMC]

I'm confused by this "organic" complaint - not even really sure what it means.  How would a black Superman "naturally" evolve organically?  You either decide to do it, or you don't.  If it's meant that DC/Warner seems to just be throwing shit at the wall for nearly a decade, then, well, sure.  Might as well try this - I'm gonna be skeptical of anything coming from them these days but don't see any inherent problem with them going a different direction with Superman considering they already have with Batman.

[Jaxom 1974]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

I'm confused by this "organic" complaint - not even really sure what it means.  How would a black Superman "naturally" evolve organically?  You either decide to do it, or you don't.  If it's meant that DC/Warner seems to just be throwing shit at the wall for nearly a decade, then, well, sure.  Might as well try this - I'm gonna be skeptical of anything coming from them these days but don't see any inherent problem with them going a different direction with Superman considering they already have with Batman.

For me, if you're referring to me (and I don't think I'm specifically arguing for or against), when I think of organically changing a character in the comic books, it's a story element borne out of specific plotting, and we're talking within the primary universe of books...

While it's horrible in its execution and most everything about the plot, there is the time they made Frank Castle into a black man.  It was pseudo sciency, and I don't think it was intended to be permanent...it came about organically.

Nick Fury is an interesting example...as it was the Ultimates line of books that easily used the template of Samuel Jackson to alter the base character of Fury, but it was a new line and a natural move.  It worked. Then the MCU and suddenly they needed to model Fury after the movie Fury in the books and it became Nick Fury Jr. or something like that.

 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

For me, if you're referring to me (and I don't think I'm specifically arguing for or against), when I think of organically changing a character in the comic books, it's a story element borne out of specific plotting, and we're talking within the primary universe of books...

Right but I don't really view doing this with films as comparable.  Obviously Brandon Routh's Superman has nothing to do with Henry Cavill's (or Tobey Maguire's Spiderman with Garfield's, etc.), so assuming the black Superman is not going to try to be a continuation of either, there isn't much "organically changing" the character to be had.  It's just a new take on the character.

[Jaxom 1974]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Right but I don't really view doing this with films as comparable.  Obviously Brandon Routh's Superman has nothing to do with Henry Cavill's (or Tobey Maguire's Spiderman with Garfield's, etc.), so assuming the black Superman is not going to try to be a continuation of either, there isn't much "organically changing" the character to be had.  It's just a new take on the character.

Okay. Right. I think we're coming at it from the same place.  Each of those examples you use are all independent of one another.  A black Superman's story should be a brand new slate.  Start to finish.  

If you were going to drop a black Superman into the next theoretical Snyderverse Justice League movie, yeah, you need something organic to explain that though.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

If you were going to drop a black Superman into the next theoretical Snyderverse Justice League movie, yeah, you need something organic to explain that though.

Yeah that'd be..really fucking weird.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

For me, if you're referring to me (and I don't think I'm specifically arguing for or against), when I think of organically changing a character in the comic books, it's a story element borne out of specific plotting, and we're talking within the primary universe of books...

While it's horrible in its execution and most everything about the plot, there is the time they made Frank Castle into a black man.  It was pseudo sciency, and I don't think it was intended to be permanent...it came about organically.

It really didn't. It was the opposite of organic: a writer wanted to tell a particular story (rather ham-fistedly) and so he made it happen.

I'm with DMC here. Folks, nothing in fiction happens 'organically'. Writers make choices. If you reboot Superman as a black man, that's no more or less organic than rebooting Luthor as a businessman instead of a mad scientist (as John Byrne did).

[Ran]

I really don't understand the whole DC strategy with basically having multiple versions of the characters in the same medium. A animated Superman, a TV Superman, a movie Superman, even an animated movie Superman -- okay. But like having two different Jokers or two different Batmans in live action film, and basically say they're basically different universes or whatever, feels strange.

Yes, comics do this stuff, but I think the messaging to audiences is going to get really complicated. Will be interesting to see if this experiment works out the way they hope.

 

[DaveSumm]

3 minutes ago, Ran said:

I really don't understand the whole DC strategy with basically having multiple versions of the characters in the same medium. A animated Superman, a TV Superman, a movie Superman, even an animated movie Superman -- okay. But like having two different Jokers or two different Batmans in live action film, and basically say they're basically different universes or whatever, feels strange.

Yes, comics do this stuff, but I think the messaging to audiences is going to get really complicated. Will be interesting to see if this experiment works out the way they hope.

 

It wouldn’t be so bad if they had some kind of branding to go along with it. “DC Cinema” for the actual universe and “DC Elseworlds” for standalones or something.

[DaveSumm]

5 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

... or, it could be that this news didn't generate the kind of buzz they were expecting. It certainly didn't generate much discussion on this board.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/finn-wittrock-to-star-in-green-lantern-on-hbo-max-4155375/

I don’t know if this is in the Arrowverse, but Berlanti is the Arrowverse guy. So I guess it didn’t get discussed for the same reason the Arrowverse threads fell off the first page never to be seen again, the shows got a bit shit.

[Ran]

6 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

It wouldn’t be so bad if they had some kind of branding to go along with it. “DC Cinema” for the actual universe and “DC Elseworlds” for standalones or something.

I'm still surprised they haven't embraced Elseworlds as a brand name. They could have used it for Joker. 

[Relic]

16 minutes ago, Ran said:

I really don't understand the whole DC strategy with basically having multiple versions of the characters in the same medium.\

 

You assume they have a strategy. They don't. I won't see this movie for the same reason I don't watch superhero movies anymore. After seeing 2 or 3 of them the rest all blend into a miasma of mediocrity... at best. At worst, they are a brainless waste of life energy. 

That said, i like seeing angry white people throw a fit over the concept of black Superman. 

 

[Frey family reunion]

I insist on having my Superman exactly as I first found him in the comics.  With blue hair and skin covered in little pink dots.

I could care less who they get for Superman, they’ve beaten that horse to death.  The very first two movies gave me about as much Superman as I’ll ever need.  

[Ran]

1 minute ago, Frey family reunion said:

The very first two movies gave me about as much Superman as I’ll ever need.  

Yes, Superman and Superman II really are a good place to leave off the cinematic Superman.

[Jaxom 1974]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

It really didn't. It was the opposite of organic: a writer wanted to tell a particular story (rather ham-fistedly) and so he made it happen.

I'm with DMC here. Folks, nothing in fiction happens 'organically'. Writers make choices. If you reboot Superman as a black man, that's no more or less organic than rebooting Luthor as a businessman instead of a mad scientist (as John Byrne did).

For the record, I am actually on DMCs side of this too...I also do not argue the fact that writers make choices.  I do believe it is possible to for things to change organically from writing though, particularly in comic books. I think the length of time one particular writer works on a particular character is directly part of that. The difference between continuing arcs and rebooting.. My Frank Castle example might not be the best.  I'll see if I can think of a better one.

If I'm in any way coming across as defending the idiots who don't think Kal-El can't be a black man...then I apologize because I absolutely think it can be done.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

5 hours ago, DaveSumm said:

I don’t know if this is in the Arrowverse, but Berlanti is the Arrowverse guy. So I guess it didn’t get discussed for the same reason the Arrowverse threads fell off the first page never to be seen again, the shows got a bit shit.

This  isn't Arrowsverse. This is the GL Corps. show on HBO MAX.  Brought to you by the same people who did the 2011 GL movie.

Whatever they do, I hope it's better than the Arrowverse stuff. I know there are people who like it. Good for them. I'm not a fan. I don't know if it's the audience aging out or the MCU gobbling up everything; but judging from the ratings, a lot of people have lost interest. Having said that, I intend to catch up on Doom Patrol and Superman and Lois at some point.

5 hours ago, Relic said:

You assume they have a strategy. They don't. I won't see this movie for the same reason I don't watch superhero movies anymore. After seeing 2 or 3 of them the rest all blend into a miasma of mediocrity... at best. At worst, they are a brainless waste of life energy. 

That said, i like seeing angry white people throw a fit over the concept of black Superman. 

 

They have no strategy. None of this is new. WB have had Superman projects in near constant development since the early-90's. Some of these projects were weeks or even days away from principal photography when they were cancelled.

You can also look at the other projects that have been announced with little or no progress: Spielberg's Blackhawks and a Nighting movie were both announced years ago, DuVernay's New Gods spent 3 years in development before being shelved, etc. 

As far as the thing being "organic" or not, one difference between this and the Spider-Men is, relative to the MCU, they were else world stories. Maguire moved on after his trilogy was done and Garfield was too old to portray a 16 year old. It made sense to go another way.

On the other hand, you have a really good superman in Henry Cavill who is still young and fit enough to play the part and has expressed interest in doing so; even going to WB with a proposal with Chris McQuarrie a few years ago. Nothing. They've had him sitting on his ass since 2016. If they sideline Cavill and they don't hit it out of the park with Val Zod or whatever they end up doing, it'll get ugly. And you can accuse people of racism and toxicity all you want; it's not going to guilt them into buying tickets for your movie.

You also have the problem of Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Flash, Shazam! and (probably) Black Adam getting new movies in the "Josstice League" continuity where Cavill's Superman exists. So is the Coates/Abrams Superman part of that continuity or not? Are they going for a total reboot?

And, I say again, DC comics has an established roster of great POC characters who are superheroes in their own right (not sidekicks or love interests). It makes no sense that there has been no progress in developing these stories. I'll also re-state, given the very public beef with Ray Fisher over the last year and the news of the Wayne T Carr / Jon Stewart stuff being cut from ZSJL, WB might be feeling the need to generate positive buzz and do a little damage control.  If I'm being too cynical, please tell me when the Jason Mamoa Frosty the Snowman project is going to hit.

If they can do something interesting with it; great. If it comes off like pandering; god help them.

 

 

 

[Heartofice]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2021/05/06/fear-for-a-black-superman/

 

Quote

Studios are using diversity and inclusivity to justify reviving old franchises. It provides an alibi for keeping ongoing brands on proverbial life support and rebooting existing brands. After 40 years of disappointing/underwhelming Superman movies (Superman II, the last unmitigated success, opened in June of 1981), Warner Bros. and D.C. Films are still trying to succeed Superman Returns and Man of Steel failed. Even presuming good intentions and artistic value, there is an apparent cynicism in using the “But this time, he’s Black!” hook as a way to defend another go-around preemptively. 

 

Quote

F. Gary Gray’s Men in Black: International starred Chris Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson. Still, most audiences just chose to watch Men In Black (or Thor: Ragnarok) again. Elizabeth Banks’ Charlie’s Angels was more inclusive and more progressive than the McG flicks. I liked it well enough, I’d happily see Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott and Ella Balinska in a sequel, but audiences didn’t care. They didn’t ask for another Charlie’s Angels, and this soft reboot was the same movie with new “stars.” Tim Miller and James Cameron’s Terminator: Dark Fate cribbed the Star Wars: The Force Awakens formula (young, diverse protagonists with franchise vets acting as elders amid a loose remake of the first film). However, audiences had been burned by two awful Terminator relaunches.

Quote

Diversity is not a hindrance to getting general audiences in the theaters for something eagerly anticipated, but inclusivity is not a carrot for something they don’t want to see. Audiences flocked to Crazy Rich Asians because it was a big and splashy 1990’s-style Hollywood romantic comedy. Force Awakens scored $2 billion global because it was a sequel to Return of the Jedi. Its new protagonists were Daisy Ridley, John Boyega and Oscar Isaac, a bonus which contributed to post-debut legs following a $248 million opening and strong word-of-mouth. Trying the same trick with Terminator: Dark Fate failed because audiences didn’t give a damn about another Terminator movie. Consumers either don’t care about inclusivity or only care about diversity for films/T.V. shows they already want to see.

Quote

There is a difference between Hollywood offering up the “first” Static Shock movie or the “first” Miles Morales movie (Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse) and rehashing an existing I.P. with a “But this time he’s not a white guy!” 

I think this is really what it is about, using diversity as a band aid to cover for the fact you are making a bad movie isn't going to work, and audiences don't care. Whether this movie will feel 'organic' or not will probably come down to whether they want to tell a unique story using Superman, or whether they just want to push some politics at people and make them feel guilty (or make "white men angry") So far it looks like it is falling mainly on the latter side.

There is no reason you can't tell different, unique stories using recognisable DC characters. Joker is a great example of a one off story that has it's own vision but there is little outcry that there are 2 versions of the Joker. Everyone seemed to get that it was existing i a different universe. But the reason that movie worked was because it did feel like it was doing something interesting with the character (Though you could say all they did was make Taxi Driver with the Joker)

[polishgenius]

Joker made one of the greatest villains ever into an incel hero, it can fuck right off.