itt: consternation and wailing about Zach Snyder's upcoming SUPERMAN/BATMAN film/sequel to MAN OF STEEL -- official title: BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE

(batman) faked his death to go on a sex vacay with Catwoman.

― da croupier, Friday, June 13, 2014

now there's a dc-comics movie sequel worth making.

i bet christian bale would come back for that, definitely

Okay, I get your point... It's interesting that despite having recognizable brand names and a template for widescreen action, it all still seems to boil down to casting the right actors for key roles. The first two Hulk movies weren't successful, the first Thor movie wasn't a big hit either, but the Iron Man movies were, and I guess that was mostly due to Robert Downey Jr.'s charisma. And that charisma seems to have done a lot of the carrying for the Avengers movie, as well as Tom Hiddleton being the perfect choice for Loki. (As I've understood it, he's become more popular a character than Thor himself.) Similarly, a lot of The Dark Knight's success was seemingly built on Heath Ledger. So yeah, I guess good actors and memorable characters are the thing where the DC movies haven't been quite as successful as the Marvel ones, they still need to tackle that one, and I'm not sure casting Affleck at this point in his career is gonna help... Who's gonna play the villains in Batman & Superman?

(xxx-post)

Jesse Eisenberg is Lex Luthor in Bat vs Sup, which feels like it could go either way. but it's not like anyone gives a fuck now that batman's in it.

Thor 1 and Cap'n 1 weren't huge breakout hits like Iron Man but they did well with audiences, established the (relatively unfamiliar) characters and the sequels did money equal to Man Of Steel following the Avengers.

Honestly, Marvel has done a sterling job building a "universe" and everyone else is rushing to keep up, esp DC, which is diluting the Marvel template with the "hey just reboot it 2 years later" Sony/Spidey mindset (which is getting them diminishing if still impressive-in-china returns) and their own "uhhh dark knight made money be like dark knight" deal.

Okay, wtf, I checked it, and apparenly Luthor will be played by some guy who's 4 years younger than me! Are they gonna go for the Silver age "Clark Kent and Luthor used to be childhood buddies" angle? IMO the Byrne reboot where Luthor is older and more experienced than Superman made him into a better villain, but I guess they won't be doing that with this Eisenberg dude.

(x-post)

if this slate is real there is no way marvel is backing off from the chicken run of both Bat vs Supes and Cap'n 3 opening the same weekend (May 6, 2016 until somebody flinches!). In a world where both are dropped the same day and there's mutually assured destruction, Marvel still has umpteen other franchises while DC has put everything they have in this movie.

is batman still the "villain" in this new movie, or have they gone in a different direction?

but it's not like anyone gives a fuck now that batman's in it.

I dunno, I'm sure the majority of people who saw The Avengers didn't give a fuck about Loki or Tom Hiddleston (comic fans and those who saw the first Thor movie being the exceptions), but he made a such impact that they had to rewrite Thor 2 to give him bigger role than the main villain of that movie.

considering they're superfriends a year later, one must assume bats and supes hug it out and start dealing with lex pretty early on in the film.

i think lex luthor is way more interesting as this experienced, cynical mega-capitalist corruption of the american dream that superman can't just shoot laser eyes at, too. but then i haven't seen smallville.

and yes, it's possible jesse eisenberg will find some new angle rather than just do Mark Zuckerberg With A Laser Gun and blow everyone's mind. My point is just that it's going to be a lot harder when the movie has so much far important stuff to do.

i mean jesus, at this point I'm WAYYYYY more curious about Belle vs Sebastian: Department Of Justice than I am about this Ultron fellow

also thor made 180m in the US alone! that the majority of people who saw The Avengers didn't care about loki previously is just because that movie was the third biggest film ever!

also thor made 180m in the US alone!

With a budget of 150 million (which doesn't include marketing, I think), this wasn't a huge success.

jesse eisenberg

Keep parsing this as Pinefox trying to refer to Aaron Paul.

tuomas you're moving the goalposts around. thor made $450m globally (and 2x the budget is the traditionally perceived breakeven point for a movie like this), which while not a mindblowing success, was still A Profitable Movie Lots Of People Saw and quite good for a film that introduced a norse god played by an unknown as a superhero. And with a boost from the avengers, the sequel made $644m (while only raising the budget to $170m - marvel's tight like that).

Er, my only point was that the Iron Man movies were huge successes mostly because of Downey, while Thor wasn't. I wasn't saying it didn't make profit, just that it wasn't a big hit in the way Iron Man was.

actually iron man 2 and thor 2 did about equal numbers, and i don't think it was just because they decided to shoot more loki footage

def not denying that downey's charisma and surprise success was the engine of the whole marvel kaboodle, just that you're overstating the alleged lack of charisma/success of the viking

actually got thrown off - thor 2 and iron man 2 did the same globally, but 100m more of iron man 2 came from america. so yeah, thor is definitely smaller scale, though not unpopular.

and here's the thing, they went into the avengers with four heroes who at the very least had films that made north of 200m globally (one with new actor). they're going to into supes/bat/justice league with two heroes in that league, one with a new actor.

Well maybe not, but The Avengers had already done a lot of heavy lifting for Thor 2, it being the first Marvel movie to follow, and featuring one of the heroes and the villain of one of the biggest movies of all time. Iron Man 2 did the same numbers without any support like that, and I really do think Downey is the biggest reason why.

(xxpost)

obv we disagree on the degree to which chris hemsworth's a lucky drip hanging on downey's coattails, but the important thing is that you realize DC is flying without a net if this slate is true

Keep parsing this as Pinefox trying to refer to Aaron Paul.

I don't think so

but the important thing is that you realize DC is flying without a net if this slate is true

Yeah, that was the point I was trying to make above.

obv we disagree on the degree to which chris hemsworth's a lucky drip hanging on downey's coattails, but the important thing is that you realize DC is flying without a net if this slate is true

― da croupier, Friday, June 13, 2014 4:22 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah, and a slate this ambitious could doom warner bros forever, presuming they are distributing. at least the first slate of marvel films were spread among different distributors.

"shazam: the movie" should just be a loop of dave chappelle saying "shazam!" for 80 minutes.

casting ben affleck seems like such a creative misstep that i assume the whole enterprise is going to be a major fiasco, but then again i'm not really in touch with the volk.

Are they going to do little teasers & easter eggs with these, like a scene where Bruce Wayne's having a nightmare about his parents and he sees a mysterious goth dude in the background?

They couldn't even follow through on the Sinestro post-credits thing in Green Lantern, let's not give them ideas.

I think the thing that baffles me the most about this memo (assuming the memo is at all accurate) is that it suggests that they intend to integrate Sandman into the rest of this mess. I was under the assumption that it was initially intended to be its own thing (which is a questionable endeavor in and of itself). And it may still be, but given DC's current contempt for its readership and their overeagerness in tearing down the barriers separating their different and previously-unrelated (or mostly unrelated) properties, I'm inclined to believe that they intend to go down whichever road is the most ill-advised.

The bit where Batman and Martian Manhunter show up for Morpheus' funeral is gold - 2 panels is enough to build a film franchise out of, fear not.

post-avengers, marvel's worked out this great plan where they'll have one sequel followed by one original each year. Captain-America 2, Guardians Of The Galaxy, Avengers 2, Ant-Man, Cap'n 3, Dr. Strange...which they'll bump up to 3 a year if so many of the originals do well that they gotta make a Rocket Raccoon solo movie or some shit. But the current schedule means that even if Ant-Man's a turd, it has no affect on anything other property - just no Ant-Man 2.

Meanwhile DC is allegedly going to release its two not-necessarily-Justice-League movies in 2016 (Sandman, Shazam) and then drop two justice league spin-offs MONTHS after Justice League in 2017, despite having no idea whether america is on board at all.

Madness!

the worst case scenario for marvel post-iron man 2 and pre-avengers (aside from RDJ melting down from the pressure) was that thor or captain america would have bombed the year before, forcing them to cut down the character's presence in Avengers and scrap sequel plans for that character.

the worst case scenario for dc/wb now is that Bat vs Sups is hated, Shazam's a Kazaam, Sandman fails to turn everyone goth and they go into 2017 with a super team-up nobody is excited for (they're shooting concurrently so they can't scrap it). Aside from being costly as fuck, that would leave them with NOTHING as far as potential super-franchises, unless they drove a money truck to Chris Nolan's house to make The Dark Knight Is Sorry.

Legion of Superheroes movie!

Teen Titans?

uh... Suicide Squad?

If Justice League bombs I dunno if Kid Justice League and Future Justice League are worth spending hundreds of millions on.

and where marvel quickly accrued a writing brain-trust and quality crowdpleasing directors to diminish the odds of a true turkey, DC has Zack Snyder and the guy who thinks Hulk fucks She-Hulk.

i read some WB honcho quote where he said he loves putting money down on Zack Snyder, which is funny considering every movie he did between 300 and Man Of Steel lost WB money

xxp METAL MEN

what's great is that Marvel IS down their Metal Men...just for happy "everything's coming up roses" reasons

down to their Metal Men, i mean

i should make a correction, though. justice league has THREE characters from $200m+ grossing movies, though the third will also be portrayed by a new actor, as while Green Lantern made 200m globally it also cost 200m pre-advertising.

what's great is that Marvel IS down their Metal Men...just for happy "everything's coming up roses" reasons

― da croupier, Friday, June 13, 2014

lest we forget...

Announced in November, the unprecedented 60-episode deal with Netflix calls for four 13-episode solo series featuring Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage and Iron Fist, followed by a Defenders miniseries.

btw i totally hope this will be awesome

the guy who thinks Hulk fucks She-Hulk.

The thing I don't get is that David Goyer has actually written some pretty decent superhero comics (with James Robinson), plus his whole filmwriting career is based on superhero movies, so him being so disdainful of the genre sounds kinda weird and hypocritical.

maybe less disdainful of the genre than cynical abt its audience, a fine line

xxp METAL MEN

― Disagree. And im not into firey solos chief. (Phil D.), Friday, June 13, 2014 6:21 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't care about any of these forthcoming DC releases, but a CGI Metal Men film by the people who made The Incredibles would be the best thing ever (also, I had no idea it's nearly 10 YEARS since The Incredibles was released, that's horrifying)

worst part about all this is all these movies are gonna be GRITTY AS FUCK GRITFESTS OF GRIT cause WB thinks that's the only way these things can work now

just cast david eckstein as everyone

some unintentionally hilarious/tragic pondering at the end of this

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Kevin-Smith-Confirms-Warner-Bros-DC-Stage-I-Line-Up-Accurate-43489.html

More outlandishly, I'd like to think that Warner Bros is keeping Kevin Smith in the information pool not only because of his ability to drum up fan interest, but also because they'll eventually want to offer him the chance to direct a DC Comics film. Think about it: Zack Snyder is the DC equivalent of Jon Favreau, the man who kickstarts everything and lays down a solid couple of films for the rest to take off from. Kevin Smith is the Joss Whedon of DC, the man with the knowledge and the passion to take the groundwork and push it to the next level, weaving everything into one gigantic arc of awesome. Bringing Smith into the fold, even if it was just for a movie or two, would benefit Warner Bros/DC, and would almost guarantee box office and fan credibility. It's the type of shot to the arm the DC cinematic continuum needs, and it's not too out of the realm of possibility. Unless Kevin Smith has progressed to the point where he'd turn down the chance to direct Ben Affleck in a standalone Batman movie, in which case all this is for naught.

If the world can just make it to 2019...yes...maybe we'll see Kevin Smith's Batman starring Ben Affleck.

I have never been happier for the bubble I choose to live in than I am reading that paragraph, because things could be so much worse for me and I could be thinking things like that

lol @ the person assuming kevin smith has the ability to deliver like that on any level

lol @ kevin smith

lost me at "Think about it:"