|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Dec 7, 2017 13:17:30 GMT
I want to think about this realistically for a minute.
Where is the state of DC and does it matter what Marvel is doing? Well, yes it does matter what Marvel is doing, because these are viewed as comicbook films generally and Marvel has clearly set a bar and an expectation. What DC's real challenge is, is that by getting out ahead of them and taking ownership of the Market, Marvel has put DC in this position where they feel they have to avoid being copycats but also can't be different in such a way that it's unacceptable to the general audience. And that's the problem. The sweet spot is already spoken for and the only room left is for the occasional offbeat one shots.
Further, DC is in a state where we have actually significantly lowered our expectations of them. For example, let's compare Aquaman and Captain Marvel. This is a great example because while Aquaman has long been a punch line, he has now been on screen and is one of those characters people like to use the word iconic for as though it means anything. An yet, it's Captain Marvel that dominates the conversation topics. But why? We aren't looking at Aquaman as some surefire hit but rather wondering if it will turn out alright and find any real traction. And while we may not be sure if Captain Marvel will be a hit, we're all pretty sure it will be a solid effort, it will ultimately perform, and we're already talking about Skrulls and Fury's eye and Jude Law as Mar Vell. Is there any such chatter about Aquaman? And this is all happening at a time when Aquaman has wrapped filming and Captain Marvel hasn't even started.
And then we get to the Fox invasion. If the MCU really does acquire Doom and Surfer and Reed and Galactus, and can put out an entire new series of X-Men films, even if those are done outside the MCU, DC just does not have a response to that. What can they reload with? They're choices are to limp on and try to make something out of a failed franchise, or reboot with the same characters over again. They don't have other characters to start a franchise with. They just don't.
And to anybody who is looking at something like Flashpoint to be a reset button, I'd like to ask why anybody would show up to see Flashpoint if they didn't show up to Justice League. Is there just going to be another Batman series? Superman hasn't worked. Flash is limited does anybody really think Shazam is an answer?
So what happens in the next 10 years? The next 20? Marvel might very well be reloading with a full new roster that DC has no answer for and could keep going strong another 10 years easily even without that reload. And with the strong commitment, dedication to their brand, and willingness to adapt and bring in new directions, there's no reason to think they can't continue.
It's been 10 years already. In another 20 years, where is the DC Brand after living in the basement for over a quarter century? |
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Dec 7, 2017 13:20:23 GMT
Do a all female reboot!
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Dec 7, 2017 13:27:03 GMT
I like it. And keeps referring to other things the main characters are doing, but never actually show it. An entire cinematic universe of the female characters living in this world. Maybe occasionally they run into a super rich guy, or a newspaper reporter, and we think those might be Bruce and Clark but it's never really said. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 7, 2017 13:52:27 GMT
Aquaman, Shazam!, and WW2.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Dec 7, 2017 14:47:12 GMT
The DCEU should seriously consider doubling down on its more esoteric side. I just saw the trailer for Batman Ninja, and it felt like the most exciting and fresh thing that DC has done in a while. The stories I've enjoyed the most from DC in past decades have been Elseworld stories or some variation on that theme (All-Star Superman, The Dark Knight Returns, Superman: Red Son, Gotham by Gaslight, Kingdom Come, Wonder Woman: Amazonia, etc.).
Elseworld stories have the flexibility of breaking out of the traditional character molds and continuity that has stifled creativity. You can't change a DC character. What they are has been engraved in stone since time immemorial. All DC characters, with the notable exception of (Nolan's) Batman, resists all attempts at deconstruction or more in-depth exploration without the risk of alienating a large segment of the fanbase.
Complex and unwieldy continuity mixed with greedy, thoughtless executives and egotistical creatives are a death sentence for the DCEU - a shared universe which can't even decide on an official name.
The boldest move they could make is to abandon the path of a shared universe altogether. DC fans have already spoken loud and clear on this issue. They don't care about having a single continuous story that is split into discrete phases. All they want is faithful and credible recreations of the characters and iconic story beats that come from the comic books - Justice League's acceptance amongst hardcore fans proves they are a cheap date.
Why not make a Deadman film or a Gotham by Gaslight film? They'd be cheaper, faster and less complicated to make. They'd also satisfy the more high-minded DC fans' inexplicable thirst for novel deconstructions of their favorite characters.
The one thing Marvel has going against it is its mainstream, mass appeal. Marvel is in comfortable space which invites less risk taking and more complacency. DC should try to operate outside of that margin.
As it is right now, I don't see any reason for the DCEU to continue to operate as is. I have no interest in seeing Bro-Man of the Sea or another preachy Wonder Woman movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 7, 2017 14:55:45 GMT
Focus on characters outside of the Big Guns, see how that works.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Dec 7, 2017 15:25:55 GMT
Just follow Wonder Woman’s example and make better movies?
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 7, 2017 15:50:11 GMT
The DCEU should seriously consider doubling down on its more esoteric side. I just saw the trailer for Batman Ninja, and it felt like the most exciting and fresh thing that DC has done in a while. The stories I've enjoyed the most from DC in past decades have been Elseworld stories or some variation on that theme (All-Star Superman, The Dark Knight Returns, Superman: Red Son, Gotham by Gaslight, Kingdom Come, Wonder Woman: Amazonia, etc.). Elseworld stories have the flexibility of breaking out of the traditional character molds and continuity that has stifled creativity. You can't change a DC character. What they are has been engraved in stone since time immemorial. All DC characters, with the notable exception of (Nolan's) Batman, resists all attempts at deconstruction or more in-depth exploration without the risk of alienating a large segment of the fanbase. Complex and unwieldy continuity mixed with greedy, thoughtless executives and egotistical creatives are a death sentence for the DCEU - a shared universe which can't even decide on an official name. The boldest move they could make is to abandon the path of a shared universe altogether. DC fans have already spoken loud and clear on this issue. They don't care about having a single continuous story that is split into discrete phases. All they want is faithful and credible recreations of the characters and iconic story beats that come from the comic books - Justice League's acceptance amongst hardcore fans proves they are a cheap date. Why not make a Deadman film or a Gotham by Gaslight film? They'd be cheaper, faster and less complicated to make. They'd also satisfy the more high-minded DC fans' inexplicable thirst for novel deconstructions of their favorite characters. The one thing Marvel has going against it is its mainstream, mass appeal. Marvel is in comfortable space which invites less risk taking and more complacency. DC should try to operate outside of that margin. As it is right now, I don't see any reason for the DCEU to continue to operate as is. I have no interest in seeing Bro-Man of the Sea or another preachy Wonder Woman movie. How was the movie preachy? |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Dec 7, 2017 16:01:46 GMT
The DCEU should seriously consider doubling down on its more esoteric side. I just saw the trailer for Batman Ninja, and it felt like the most exciting and fresh thing that DC has done in a while. The stories I've enjoyed the most from DC in past decades have been Elseworld stories or some variation on that theme (All-Star Superman, The Dark Knight Returns, Superman: Red Son, Gotham by Gaslight, Kingdom Come, Wonder Woman: Amazonia, etc.). Elseworld stories have the flexibility of breaking out of the traditional character molds and continuity that has stifled creativity. You can't change a DC character. What they are has been engraved in stone since time immemorial. All DC characters, with the notable exception of (Nolan's) Batman, resists all attempts at deconstruction or more in-depth exploration without the risk of alienating a large segment of the fanbase. Complex and unwieldy continuity mixed with greedy, thoughtless executives and egotistical creatives are a death sentence for the DCEU - a shared universe which can't even decide on an official name. The boldest move they could make is to abandon the path of a shared universe altogether. DC fans have already spoken loud and clear on this issue. They don't care about having a single continuous story that is split into discrete phases. All they want is faithful and credible recreations of the characters and iconic story beats that come from the comic books - Justice League's acceptance amongst hardcore fans proves they are a cheap date. Why not make a Deadman film or a Gotham by Gaslight film? They'd be cheaper, faster and less complicated to make. They'd also satisfy the more high-minded DC fans' inexplicable thirst for novel deconstructions of their favorite characters. The one thing Marvel has going against it is its mainstream, mass appeal. Marvel is in comfortable space which invites less risk taking and more complacency. DC should try to operate outside of that margin. As it is right now, I don't see any reason for the DCEU to continue to operate as is. I have no interest in seeing Bro-Man of the Sea or another preachy Wonder Woman movie. How was the movie preachy? I have always known that a Woman can function as well as a man can in almost any theater of human endeavor you have to offer. I didn't need a movie to explain that to me. I didn't need a film to help me understand that women solve problems in different ways than men do that are no less valid. I'm sorry if the rest of the world needed a reminder of that in the form of a superhero, tentpole movie. I would have preferred a movie about a female superhero that did not have to function simultaneously as the fulcrum in a feminist debate. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 7, 2017 16:10:31 GMT
How was the movie preachy? I have always known that a Woman can function as well as a man can in almost any theater of human endeavor you have to offer. I didn't need a movie to explain that to me. I didn't need a film to help me understand that women solve problems in different ways than men do that are no less valid. I'm sorry if the rest of the world needed a reminder of that in the form of a superhero, tentpole movie. I would have preferred a movie about a female superhero that did not have to function simultaneously as the fulcrum in a feminist debate. What about the movie came across as promoting a feminist message? |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Dec 7, 2017 16:52:14 GMT
I have always known that a Woman can function as well as a man can in almost any theater of human endeavor you have to offer. I didn't need a movie to explain that to me. I didn't need a film to help me understand that women solve problems in different ways than men do that are no less valid. I'm sorry if the rest of the world needed a reminder of that in the form of a superhero, tentpole movie. I would have preferred a movie about a female superhero that did not have to function simultaneously as the fulcrum in a feminist debate. What about the movie came across as promoting a feminist message? The thematic idea that men were destroying the world and that a woman was needed to save it. That's not an inherently incorrect or bad idea, however; it resulted in what was only a good film being promoted beyond its rightful stature. I'd rather the film have been taken on its actual merits rather than its perceived politics. The film is now a podium to preach from as opposed to what I assume it was meant to be, a platform to further build a shared universe on. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 7, 2017 17:00:13 GMT
Just follow Wonder Woman’s example and make better movies? Even WW was fairly basic when you analyze it enough. |
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Dec 7, 2017 17:24:28 GMT
If we were talking about action movies in the 1980's the MCU would be the Sylvester Stallone movies and the DCEU would be the Chuck Norris movies. Both have their place and both can succeed if done right.
I think the DCEU will keep plugging along as is with minor adjustments and just remain the number 2 CBM franchise for the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 7, 2017 17:24:50 GMT
What about the movie came across as promoting a feminist message? The thematic idea that men were destroying the world and that a woman was needed to save it. That's not an inherently incorrect or bad idea, however; it resulted in what was only a good film being promoted beyond its rightful stature. I'd rather the film have been taken on its actual merits rather than its perceived politics. The film is now a podium to preach from as opposed to what I assume it was meant to be, a platform to further build a shared universe on. The film never went with the implication that men were killing the world, especially when one of the antagonists was a woman. The conflict behind the film was this idea that humanity as a whole was destroying the world, hence why Ares’ motivation was to wipe them all out. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Dec 7, 2017 17:30:53 GMT
The thematic idea that men were destroying the world and that a woman was needed to save it. That's not an inherently incorrect or bad idea, however; it resulted in what was only a good film being promoted beyond its rightful stature. I'd rather the film have been taken on its actual merits rather than its perceived politics. The film is now a podium to preach from as opposed to what I assume it was meant to be, a platform to further build a shared universe on. The film never went with the implication that men were killing the world, especially when one of the antagonists was a woman. The conflict behind the film was this idea that humanity as a whole was destroying the world, hence why Ares’ motivation was to wipe them all out. So why is anything outside of the Amazon's Island referred to as the "world of man" as if women didn't live in it too and weren't equally culpable in its in current state? |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 7, 2017 17:34:05 GMT
The film never went with the implication that men were killing the world, especially when one of the antagonists was a woman. The conflict behind the film was this idea that humanity as a whole was destroying the world, hence why Ares’ motivation was to wipe them all out. So why is the world of man referred to as the world of man as if women didn't live in it too and weren't equally culpable in its in current state? was the term that the movie used to refer to humanity as a whole. Hell, the movie made Zeus, a male God of questionable morals in Greek mythology, the one responsible for the creation of Diana and the rest of the Amazons. This is despite the fact that in original Wonder Woman comics, Zeus played no part in Diana’s backstory. Not only that, but the deuteragonist of the film was a man. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Dec 7, 2017 17:51:31 GMT
So why is the world of man referred to as the world of man as if women didn't live in it too and weren't equally culpable in its in current state? was the term that the movie used to refer to humanity as a whole. Hell, the movie made Zeus, a male God of questionable morals in Greek mythology, the one responsible for the creation of Diana and the rest of the Amazons. This is despite the fact that in original Wonder Woman comics, Zeus played no part in Diana’s backstory. Not only that, but the deuteragonist of the film was a man. It's still an inaccurate and misleading term that sets men apart as the destructive 'other' that pure Amazons must be leery of even if that wasn't its intention. But, okay, let's assume that I'm wrong and that the film is not the unwitting vehicle for ill-conceived feminist posturing. What do we have left? A good superhero film that doesn't accomplish much more than all of the other good superhero films that have proceeded it. It has a good first act, an exceptional second act and a lackluster third act that deteriorates into CGI spectacle - like a lot of other films in the marketplace today. So what are we supposed to be celebrating with Wonder Woman exactly? |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Dec 7, 2017 17:52:11 GMT
Aquaman, Shazam!, and WW2. The first two won't matter at all, and the last one won't be enough. I'm not convinced it will even be particularly good. It needs to majorly step up from the first one. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 7, 2017 17:58:00 GMT
Man was the term that the movie used to refer to humanity as a whole. Hell, the movie made Zeus, a male God of questionable morals in Greek mythology, the one responsible for the creation of Diana and the rest of the Amazons. This is despite the fact that in original Wonder Woman comics, Zeus played no part in Diana’s backstory. Not only that, but the deuteragonist of the film was a man. It's still an inaccurate and misleading term that sets men apart as the destructive 'other' that pure Amazons must be leery of even if that wasn't its intention. But, okay, let's assume that I'm wrong and that the film is not the unwitting vehicle for ill-conceived feminist posturing. What do we have left? A good superhero film that doesn't accomplish much more than all of the other good superhero films that have proceeded it. It has a good first act, an exceptional second act and a lackluster third act that deteriorates into CGI spectacle - like a lot of other films in the marketplace today. So what are we supposed to be celebrating with Wonder Woman exactly? The movie itself never went with this idea that only men were responsible for all the problems in the world. Again, Ares’ motivation was specifically that humans as a whole were evil creatures that needed to be wiped out, and Diana’s character arc was her coming to realize that while humanity may not be as pure and good as she thought, they are still worth saving. As for what we’re supposed to be celebrating with the film, it’s that it’s considered a good film with a lot of heart and sincerity to it. That’s all. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 7, 2017 17:58:25 GMT
Aquaman, Shazam!, and WW2. The first two won't matter at all, and the last one won't be enough. I'm not convinced it will even be particularly good. It needs to majorly step up from the first one. Why wouldn’t the first two matter? |
|
