DC Extended Universe THREAD

[verslibre]

This is another reason why I thought Batman Begins was fairly unnecessary (same with Hanibal Rising, Casino Royale, and the new Han Solo prequel. Ugh). Prequels are soo lazy

Batman Begins was a necessary reboot (as opposed to a prequel) because the franchise was tarnished by that Batman & Robin crap.

Begins also used Miller's Year One origin.

[The_Noble_Cause]

This is another reason why I thought Batman Begins was fairly unnecessary (same with Hanibal Rising, Casino Royale, and the new Han Solo prequel. Ugh). Prequels are soo lazy

Batman Begins was a necessary reboot (as opposed to a prequel) because the franchise was tarnished by that Batman & Robin crap.

That's the conventional wisdom. I don't subscribe to it. B&R disappointed at the box office domestically, but so did Batman Returns. Batman & Robin was campy but so was Batman Forever, which was a huge hit. Could a more serious Batman Triumphant have restored the franchise? Easily. People talk about Batman & Robin as some sort of franchise wrecking ball, but it's as much of a piece of shit as Batman Forever, which somehow gets a pass. A reboot was never really necessary. Franchises are flexible. Look at Moonraker in the James Bond series. If Bond going to outer space with laser guns did not require a reboot, neither did Batman. Ultimately, what did the reboot do for Warners? Yet again they are now trying to revive the Bat franchise.

[verslibre]

This is another reason why I thought Batman Begins was fairly unnecessary (same with Hanibal Rising, Casino Royale, and the new Han Solo prequel. Ugh). Prequels are soo lazy

Batman Begins was a necessary reboot (as opposed to a prequel) because the franchise was tarnished by that Batman & Robin crap.

That's the conventional wisdom. I don't subscribe to it. B&R disappointed at the box office domestically, but so did Batman Returns. Batman & Robin was campy but so was Batman Forever, which was a huge hit. Could a more serious Batman Triumphant have restored the franchise? Easily. People talk about Batman & Robin as some sort of franchise wrecking ball, but it's as much of a piece of shit as Batman Forever, which somehow gets a pass. A reboot was never really necessary. Franchises are flexible. Look at Moonraker in the James Bond series. If Bond going to outer space with laser guns did not require a reboot, neither did Batman. Ultimately, what did the reboot do for Warners? Yet again they are now trying to revive the Bat franchise.

Batman Returns cost more than twice as much money to make than Batman. First minus. It made $144 million LESS worldwide than Batman. Second minus. It kinda sucked. Third minus.

Next director. Batman Forever was alright, though I never feel the need to watch it. In spite of TLJ's Two-Face sucking and those Batnips and Bat-ass shots Joel liked so much, it's a watchable (though not memorable) flick.

B&R is just trash. Garbage. Waste. Feces. Debris from the lining of a llama's colon. Everything about it is terrible. It was an incendiary device to the Bat-franchise. Even the memes make me cringe.

Triumphant would likely have been a step back in the right direction, but then we'd have not gotten the greatness of Begins and The Dark Knight. We also needed an actor who could play both roles convincingly, and for me, Bale was that. The other guys were either a decent Wayne or Batman, but I couldn't totally buy them as both personas. Except for Clooney, he was a joke from Minute One.

Hey, I like Moonraker! In all seriousness, every time Bond gets a new actor, it's a soft reboot.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Batman Returns cost more than twice as much money to make than Batman. First minus. It made $144 million LESS worldwide than Batman. Second minus. It kinda sucked. Third minus.

Sounds like they should have rebooted after the 2nd one, according to you.

Next director. Batman Forever was alright, though I never feel the need to watch it. In spite of TLJ's Two-Face sucking and those Batnips and Bat-ass shots Joel liked so much, it's a watchable (though not memorable) flick.

It's pretty much as bad as Batman & Robin, right down to the neon glow-stick aesthetic.

Except for Clooney, he was a joke from Minute One.

I think Clooney could have been a credible Batman. The material was not treating the character seriously and Clooney's wisecracking approach is in line with that. I still thought he was better than Kilmer.

Hey, I like Moonraker!

Then you should be OK with Batman & Robin veering the series into camp territory. Because that's exactly what Moonraker did for the 007.

In all seriousness, every time Bond gets a new actor, it's a soft reboot.

That was also true of Batman until they completely rebooted with Begins.

[Monker]

This thread makes me think that somewhere on the internet, there's a thread about Battlefield Earth being a better movie than Star Wars.

I agree....but it is probably a Scientology forum.

[Monker]

Blah, blah, blah. This is how you backpedal when Marvel follows suit. "Batman and Superman AND Wonder Woman? Then we need Iron Man and Cap AND Spider-Man!"

Are you actually implying that they brought in Spiderman to copy BvS? That's laughable.

They brought him in for the same reasons Wonder Woman is in BvS, to introduce him for his solo movie.

Spider-Man was never an original Avenger.

First of all, this isn't the comics - it's irrelevant.
Second, the Avengers have been around for a while so he's not an original Avenger on film either.
So, you really have no point here.

Peter is introduced in CW in a scene that reeks of a coda to principal photography.

He comes forth in a scene that shows he idolizes Stark and it sets up Stark as his mentor. Then, later, he goes about saying he has to impress Mr. Stark. Gee, I wonder why Stark is in Homecoming. It just makes no sense at all why they went through all of this.

Apart from that, he's in the green screen airport battle — and a super-quick post-credits scene. Spider-Man's MCU branding smacks much more "promotional" than Diana's in BvS could ever be.

That's why she's there. Well, that and for T&A. Not sure how well a teen Peter Parker does with teenage girls and getting them to the theater.

Hence why I said that change likely had no effect on you. The words had no impact like when Steve said 'em.

I disagree...he is at the funeral of someone he cared about very deeply. It was an emotional moment deepened by her daughters timely words of wisdom. Just as you say the boy dying was Stark's last straw, this was Roger's "last straw" to convince him he was doing the right thing.

The audience was waiting for the next fight, anyway.

I don't think so. The correct way to write drama is to have conflicts and then lulls to deal with the impact and then conflict with higher stakes and then lulls. That builds things and gives the audience a break to digest.

When it written as: lull, lull, lull, lull, lull, lull, action, action, end of movie....Well, the first two thirds of the movie is boring, the action may wake people up, and the movie over-all is horrible.

It's ALL painfully obvious to the average bear, Boo Boo. If you put a crayon sketch of a square and a triangle in a nice frame, it doesn't alter the appearance of either shape. The contrast between Tony and Steve was apparent before the MCU existed. Everything I pointed out sits on the same level of clarity.

It's not apparent to 90% of the audience, who do not follow the comics. The contrast has been building since the first Avengers movie. This was the climax of all of that.

There just happened to be a security cam on a patch of lonely road. TWS just happened to not be masked. He just happened to mug for the camera.

"It's just written that way."

It's a Hail Mary. The only thing it was designed to do was make two guys fight over one guy's friend. No foreshadowing of their reconciliation was necessary, either. They already showed the first step before Rogers' break-in at the Raft.

It's not a hail Mary when the entire movie was written to build up to that point. And, that's not an opinion, it's a fact.

At least spell Dickens correctly. I'm a Poe fan, so I've no reason to criticize his approach nor any other established writer's. You, OTOH...

Poe writes, "Here then the poem may be said to have its beginning — at the end, where all works of art should begin".

Oh, I'm sure they already have the ending of the Infinity War written.

Well, I would FUQQING hope so since they have all the source material right there in front of them.

As I have said, this isn't the comics. It may not match the comics at all....and it doesn't have to.

Sorry, but I never believed he was dead. See Death and Rebirth above. It's part of the Hero's Journey...over coming something like paralysis makes him an even greater hero.

Like Superman's sacrifice at the hands of DoomZod? Or are you going to unfurl your His death was unearned! flag?

Yes, like that...if his death meant anything and the audience bought into it.

Batman needs less of an introduction than any of those characters.

You are just flat out wrong. Batman is supposed to older and grisly. Nobody knew that Batman.

No, I'm not. His origin is unchanged (and they'll probably retain his well-known Miller origin, too). [/quote]

I did not say anything about his origin. This Batman is not the same as any we have seen on screen before.

Also, you need a quick grammar lesson. Batman was not supposed to be grisly. That word means "disgusting, horrible, bloody, repulsive." Like "his grisly murder," etc.

No, I meant 'grisly' as in a man who tortures people and brands them with his logo with the intention of giving them a death sentence when they go to prison.

Travis already got to you with this one. I guess, uh, "you didn't see the full scene." See, the Flash appears TWICE in the film. The SECOND time you see him is in the security footage (which is not "10sec" long, nor a fuzzy blip). Those JL cameos are cameos regardless of the source. We didn't just glimpse a trident or a chrome torso. Those would be Easter eggs.

I said they were "more like Easter Eggs". They are not really cameos because they are really not even part of the plot to this movie. They are something in between. Calling them cameos implies they actually DO SOMETHING important to the movie. I suppose you can call Flash a "cameo", if you demand it...but if all you have are those fuzzy 10 second blips, that's not a cameo to me.

That is true. But, your original post made it sound like you thought I said the encounter in Parker's house lasted a half hour and set up Spiderman for the rest of the movie.

It doesn't change the fact that you were jabbering and exalting a movie that you had not seen.[/quote]

Now I don't even know what you are talking about...I don't think you do either.

[YoungJRNYfan]

Wonder Woman movie budget reported at $150 mil.

[YoungJRNYfan]

Monker's posting style:

[verslibre]

[verslibre]

They brought him in for the same reasons Wonder Woman is in BvS, to introduce him for his solo movie.

Spider-Man was an unnecessary inclusion, and it still makes Tony look like a tool when he brings him to the airport.

First of all, this isn't the comics - it's irrelevant.

But it IS relevant, because that's the medium from whence it came. Were it irrelevant (because that is an absolute), Marvel wouldn't make an hour-long special like Marvel's Captain America: 75 Heroic Years and air it in the same time slot as Agent Carter. That's Marvel's way of saying "THIS is how it all began! Feel free to pick up the big trade collections and read ALL the stories!"

Peter is introduced in CW in a scene that reeks of a coda to principal photography.

He comes forth in a scene that shows he idolizes Stark and it sets up Stark as his mentor. Then, later, he goes about saying he has to impress Mr. Stark. Gee, I wonder why Stark is in Homecoming. It just makes no sense at all why they went through all of this.

It doesn't, until you remember that RDJ asked for mo' money (he got $30 million), so they put together that hokey slapdash scene to squeeze a little more juice out of the Downster and make Peter lick the Toner's nuts. So now Bony Tony is the "inventor" of his underoos.

Apart from that, he's in the green screen airport battle — and a super-quick post-credits scene. Spider-Man's MCU branding smacks much more "promotional" than Diana's in BvS could ever be.

That's why she's there. Well, that and for T&A. Not sure how well a teen Peter Parker does with teenage girls and getting them to the theater.

Oh, baby, T&A. Give it to me. After that pic of Liz Olsen showing off the sistas on the red carpet, I think Scarlet Witch should go full peep-show. And thanks, Joss, for all those lingering shot of ScarJo's tight ass in Avengers. "The man knows!"

Hence why I said that change likely had no effect on you. The words had no impact like when Steve said 'em.

I disagree...he is at the funeral of someone he cared about very deeply. It was an emotional moment deepened by her daughters timely words of wisdom. Just as you say the boy dying was Stark's last straw, this was Roger's "last straw" to convince him he was doing the right thing.

First, Sharon is not Peggy's daughter. Sharon is her niece. You thought Steve was mackin' down on Peggy's KID? Man, you are SICK!!

http://marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Sharon_Carter (Since you take nobody's word for anything.)

Second, I don't mean Steve wasn't affected, I mean the GA! Remember when I said something about Vancamp's "monotonal" delivery? :lol I thought I'd made that abundantly clear, but whatever...

The audience was waiting for the next fight, anyway.

I don't think so. The correct way to write drama is to have conflicts and then lulls to deal with the impact and then conflict with higher stakes and then lulls. That builds things and gives the audience a break to digest.

I know so. IMDb's users confirm it, too. Go look at the threads in there. Marvel's stories aren't as textured, and everyone was waiting for Bucky's breakout and the big airport battle since that's how they sold the movie.

Btw, a lot of people "out there" (meaning not MR) agree Tony got nerfed. His suits are made of a titanium alloy. That shit's hard to dent, let alone bend, twist, tear, etc.

When it is written as: lull, lull, lull, lull, lull, lull, action, action, end of movie....Well, the first two thirds of the movie is boring, the action may wake people up, and the movie over-all is horrible.

Except BvS wasn't a series of lulls until the three big action set-pieces. After the opening montage, we have the Black Zero flashback. That's action right there. Later, we have the Batmobile sequence. More action. Between and after is more exposition, which leads to the film's centerpiece, and then two more insane action-packed blow-outs. You didn't see the full scene.

It's ALL painfully obvious to the average bear, Boo Boo. If you put a crayon sketch of a square and a triangle in a nice frame, it doesn't alter the appearance of either shape. The contrast between Tony and Steve was apparent before the MCU existed. Everything I pointed out sits on the same level of clarity.

It's not apparent to 90% of the audience, who do not follow the comics. The contrast has been building since the first Avengers movie. This was the climax of all of that.

No, that's just how they wanted to sell it (and you bought it). Every character has his or her difference with whoever, but this whole "massive tension brewing between Steve and Tony" is greatly exaggerated. They had a moment in the first Avengers, but it had more to do with two guys who barely know each other. Their second "moment" in AoU had to do more with chest-thumping. ("You haven't seen MY dark side!") The big brouhaha in this new movie started in this new movie. And it didn't even really start until Tony saw that very convenient (and fuzzy) security footage. All that stuff with the Accords was padding because they didn't do it like the comic (it made more sense there), and without Banner and Thor signing the documents (and we know that will never happen, because the former ain't signing shit and the latter doesn't feel the need to adhere to the laws of Earthmen), then the international community can't enforce jack or shit on the Avengers as a functioning entity. If anybody could MAYBE talk Steve into it, it would be Fury (surprise! he's not in the movie), and even then, it would be quite a task.

FYI.

There just happened to be a security cam on a patch of lonely road. TWS just happened to not be masked. He just happened to mug for the camera.

"It's just written that way."

You're learning.

It's a Hail Mary. The only thing it was designed to do was make two guys fight over one guy's friend. No foreshadowing of their reconciliation was necessary, either. They already showed the first step before Rogers' break-in at the Raft.

It's not a hail Mary when the entire movie was written to build up to that point. And, that's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Forced. They were writing a different movie till Feige stuck his nose in the office and nerfed them.

Poe writes, "Here then the poem may be said to have its beginning — at the end, where all works of art should begin".

At least you can spell his name correctly.

As I have said, this isn't the comics. It may not match the comics at all....and it doesn't have to.

Okay, then, maybe I should drop a MASSIVE spoiler right here that I bet they WILL take from the storyline.

Like Superman's sacrifice at the hands of DoomZod? Or are you going to unfurl your His death was unearned! flag?

Yes, like that...if his death meant anything and the audience bought into it.

I was never under the impression it was a question of if.

I did not say anything about his origin. This Batman is not the same as any we have seen on screen before.

And he still didn't need another solo movie before BvS.

Also, you need a quick grammar lesson. Batman was not supposed to be grisly. That word means "disgusting, horrible, bloody, repulsive." Like "his grisly murder," etc.

No, I meant 'grisly' as in a man who tortures people and brands them with his logo with the intention of giving them a death sentence when they go to prison.

Tell me, does this act qualify as torture:



You mean it does? You can thank Frank Miller. (You can also thank a few other writers while you're at it.)

I said they were "more like Easter Eggs".

Stop backpedaling.

[verslibre]

Harley Quinn Movie in the Works at Warner Bros. With Margot Robbie (Exclusive)

Months ahead of the opening of Suicide Squad, Warner Bros. is already contemplating a spinoff for the DC Entertainment anti-heroine, Harley Quinn.

Margot Robbie, who stars as the villainess in Suicide Squad, is attached to reprise the character and would also produce the untitled spinoff, The Hollywood Reporter has learned.

But in an interesting twist, the project is not a Quinn solo movie. Rather, it would focus on several of DC’s female heroes and villains.

Details are being closely guarded but names such as Batgirl and Birds of Prey have surfaced, although in what capacity, it’s not clear. Warner Bros. isn’t commenting.

There is also a scribe penning the script but those details, too, are being kept secret, although it is known that the writer is female.

DC has a very strong stable of heroines and villainesses and has been focusing on those characters with the rise of its female readership and fanbase. It recently introduced DC SuperHero Girls, a line of comics and products targeting the young female demographic. The characters getting the spotlight include Quinn, Batgirl, Batman villainess Poison Ivy, Katana (Quinn’s fellow member of the Suicide Squad) and Bumblebee, who can fly and shrink.

Sources say that Robbie was the impetus for the project, adding that when she got the part for the movie, she dove deep into the comics to learn as much as possible on the character. In the process, she fell for DC’s female characters. She brought on the writer to help develop the project and brought it to Warners, which snapped it up.

A Quinn-centered movie is a no-brainer for Warners. The character was created by writer Paul Dini and was initially a sidekick and girlfriend to the Joker. But to the surprise of many, she caught the imagination of fans, who have propelled to her star status. While she may not have the stature and deep roots of DC's Wonder Woman, Quinn's books outsell the Amazonian's and her merchandise is also a top seller.

The character has some similarities to Marvel's Deadpool in that they both break the fourth wall and have nihilistic streaks, with their stories being wacky fun.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/margot-robbies-harley-quinn-movie-894486

[YoungJRNYfan]

Fuck YESSSSSS:

Harley Quinn Movie in the Works at Warner Bros with Margot Robbie set to star (Exclusive)
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-v ... k_20160516

[verslibre]

Maybe the next Batman trilogy will involve the entire Bat Family. That would be nifty.

[verslibre]

Exclusive: Will Smith Reveals How David Ayer Convinced Him to Join ‘Suicide Squad’

“I wasn’t really looking for this one. David Ayer called and this was one of those gifts that fell out of the sky. He came and he didn’t even have the screenplay, he pitched it [and] left me with the source material. He said, ‘I wanna make a serious, badass version of all of these characters. It’s not the cute, pretty, silly version of this, I wanna do the down and dirty, rough, rugged, and raw.’ So that in the DC world, that flavor, I was inspired by that.”

Yeah!

“What’s really special about David and special about Suicide Squad is yes we’re in a hyper-reality, but David Ayer is a full-on 100% actor’s director. So he takes characters and he creates this world, but he only cares about what’s real and authentic between the characters. Looking at Harley and the relationship with The Joker, it’s not a comic book relationship; he’s getting the real depth of the psychology of the relationship and creating these insane interactions. For me with Deadshot, just really getting into how somebody could kill somebody and then go Christmas shopping with their daughter, having to get into that mindset in this spectacular hyper-real world. I think people are gonna be surprised at the look and the feel of Suicide Squad."

YEAH!!

“It was pretty unusual. Let’s just say this film was perfectly cast. The Suicide Squad and the flavor of these characters blends well with the flavors of the people. So our set took on a dare I say bizarre tonal quality.”

YEAH!!!



http://collider.com/will-smith-suicide-squad-david-ayer/

[YoungJRNYfan]

Fuck, I don't give two shits about how much money these movies make at the BO or how bad RT will gut them, this is going to be the DC Motha'Fuckin'Universe You're either in, or GTFout.

[verslibre]

#DCTA (as in DC T&A)

[Monker]

LOL...so you guys rip Civil War by saying BvS inspired it....

....but are all in for Harley Quinn being added as an obvious inspiration from Deadpool.

Too funny...and I don't think I'd want to take on Deadpool, that was a perfectly timed film.

:!:

Harley Quinn Movie in the Works at Warner Bros. With Margot Robbie (Exclusive)

Months ahead of the opening of Suicide Squad, Warner Bros. is already contemplating a spinoff for the DC Entertainment anti-heroine, Harley Quinn.

Margot Robbie, who stars as the villainess in Suicide Squad, is attached to reprise the character and would also produce the untitled spinoff, The Hollywood Reporter has learned.

But in an interesting twist, the project is not a Quinn solo movie. Rather, it would focus on several of DC’s female heroes and villains.

Details are being closely guarded but names such as Batgirl and Birds of Prey have surfaced, although in what capacity, it’s not clear. Warner Bros. isn’t commenting.

There is also a scribe penning the script but those details, too, are being kept secret, although it is known that the writer is female.

DC has a very strong stable of heroines and villainesses and has been focusing on those characters with the rise of its female readership and fanbase. It recently introduced DC SuperHero Girls, a line of comics and products targeting the young female demographic. The characters getting the spotlight include Quinn, Batgirl, Batman villainess Poison Ivy, Katana (Quinn’s fellow member of the Suicide Squad) and Bumblebee, who can fly and shrink.

Sources say that Robbie was the impetus for the project, adding that when she got the part for the movie, she dove deep into the comics to learn as much as possible on the character. In the process, she fell for DC’s female characters. She brought on the writer to help develop the project and brought it to Warners, which snapped it up.

A Quinn-centered movie is a no-brainer for Warners. The character was created by writer Paul Dini and was initially a sidekick and girlfriend to the Joker. But to the surprise of many, she caught the imagination of fans, who have propelled to her star status. While she may not have the stature and deep roots of DC's Wonder Woman, Quinn's books outsell the Amazonian's and her merchandise is also a top seller.

The character has some similarities to Marvel's Deadpool in that they both break the fourth wall and have nihilistic streaks, with their stories being wacky fun.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/margot-robbies-harley-quinn-movie-894486

[YoungJRNYfan]

There's no ripping going on. Fiege himself said it and it came from the horses mouth. Civil War was inspired by BvS and nothing but a fan service glorified Avengers film.

A lot of comic book characters are alike, but the article only mentions Deadpool to obviously compare the quirkiness of the character but in reality, Harley Quinn is a protégé of Joker and not Deapool. Those goalposts were looking tight lately, though.

Besides, Harley Quinn is a straight villain and a female lead. 2 things only DC isn't scared to do and they already committed to that character in Suicide Squad WAY BEFORE the successes of DP.

Now if you want to talk about yet another inspiration movie, look no further than Captain Marvel. A Marvel film they clearly can't stand to make but have to because of you-know-who. Maybe she will sell enough action figures to the studios liking

[YoungJRNYfan]

Great interview with Charles Roven and Deborah Snyder:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6bLku-3OIc

[RedWingFan]

Now if you want to talk about yet another inspiration movie, look no further than Captain Marvel. A Marvel film they clearly can't stand to make but have to because of you-know-who. Maybe she will sell enough action figures to the studios liking

Lol. Yeah, because Marvel wants to be just like D.C. and hit the 29% Critic review mark. Marvel isn't rushing into production to show D.C. how to do a female hero right. It's on the schedule waiting in line with everyone else. I think marvel is happy with being the gold standard in comic book films. I'm happy you're happy with the pewter D.C. is dishing out to you. But you are straight delusional if you think marvel strives for that.

Feige did go to civil war after hearing about B v S because he knew they could do it right and wanted to blow B v S out of the water. They announced it and scheduled it on B v S's release date. They took it's release date, then followed it and released a far superior film in BO totals, critic reviews and audience reviews. That's the trifecta. No amount of whining or debate will change that.

[verslibre]

LOL...so you guys rip Civil War by saying BvS inspired it....

How many times do you need to be told that Feige said two words: "Civil" and "War," in that order? There's denial, and then there's you.

Too funny...and I don't think I'd want to take on Deadpool, that was a perfectly timed film.

Who said it's about "taking on" Deadpool? Nobody.

Harley Quinn has a large fanbase, so it's a no-brainer, really.

This bullshit with you and "perfectly timed" and "good storytelling." Disney thought both applied to The Lone Ranger and look what happened.

[YoungJRNYfan]

Lol. Yeah, because Marvel wants to be just like D.C. and hit the 29% Critic review mark.

Marvel has no interests in being like DC, true. They are most interested in their formulistic plan of dishing out fan servicing and critical forms of Utopia while virtually trying nothing new to bring to the table other than setting up the next phase of hypertension airport battles. That's what Marvel movies have become and audience's have been accustomed to look forward to that with their Blockbusters formulating over the years. I'm happy you're happy with Marvel Studio's expertise in giving you the same, but yet, predictable shiny movie that gives audience's exactly what they want. As a fan of diversity, I'm glad WB/DC has no interest in telling their stories like Marvel, regardless of BO or RT fanboy gloat.

Marvel isn't rushing into production to show D.C. how to do a female hero right.

That's probably because it's known how embarrassed Marvel is of their female properties (it's well documented.) They are rushing because of DC's you-know-who Amazonian hero.

It's on the schedule waiting in line with everyone else.

There's no waiting for Marvel characters. CW was a battle between which shelf has the most space to occupy with the newest round of action figures and Infinity War is going to have not only returning characters from the original Avengers (like Thor) but introduce new characters (like Dr.Strange) and also throw in other characters of existing franchise's like Guardians of the Galaxy. And yeah, Captain Marvel will probably appear in Infinity War as well, first being introduced there and then having her solo film follow. Sound familiar?

I think marvel is happy with being the gold standard in comic book films.

Who said they weren't happy?

But you are straight delusional if you think marvel strives for that.

Strives for what? This? :

Feige did go to civil war after hearing about B v S because he knew they could do it right and wanted to blow B v S out of the water.

Wait, I thought Marvel wasn't rushing into movies to show DC how to "do things right"? You speak like a true Marvel-ite. A one big fanboy reign of contradicting terror. For as much talk that Marvel can't be touched, the studio sure is worrying about their competition a whole lot. I know DC's existence bothers Marvel fans. It's going to be funny when DC hits their stride. Just think what type of influence DC will have on Marvel when they actually do have a critical darling It might...just might...force Marvel into gutsy territory. If that happens, they may have to re-up RDJR's contract and start shoe-horning him into other films. Oh wait.

[verslibre]

There's no ripping going on. Fiege himself said it and it came from the horses mouth. Civil War was inspired by BvS and nothing but a fan service glorified Avengers film.

A lot of comic book characters are alike, but the article only mentions Deadpool to obviously compare the quirkiness of the character but in reality, Harley Quinn is a protégé of Joker and not Deapool. Those goalposts were looking tight lately, though.

Besides, Harley Quinn is a straight villain and a female lead. 2 things only DC isn't scared to do and they already committed to that character in Suicide Squad WAY BEFORE the successes of DP.

Now if you want to talk about yet another inspiration movie, look no further than Captain Marvel. A Marvel film they clearly can't stand to make but have to because of you-know-who. Maybe she will sell enough action figures to the studios liking

Oh, yeah, Feige maintains (as in last week, again) that they're "committed" to a Black Widow movie.

Whatever the hell that means.

[verslibre]

Now if you want to talk about yet another inspiration movie, look no further than Captain Marvel. A Marvel film they clearly can't stand to make but have to because of you-know-who. Maybe she will sell enough action figures to the studios liking

Lol. Yeah, because Marvel wants to be just like D.C. and hit the 29% Critic review mark. Marvel isn't rushing into production to show D.C. how to do a female hero right. It's on the schedule waiting in line with everyone else. I think marvel is happy with being the gold standard in comic book films. I'm happy you're happy with the pewter D.C. is dishing out to you. But you are straight delusional if you think marvel strives for that.

"It's on the schedule waiting in line" is rhetoric. They claimed to be working on that film before Thor: Ragnarok even had a script. I'd wait till CM is cast and the film starts principal photography before you walk around and grab your sack and go "Yeah, Marvel!"

Feige did go to civil war after hearing about B v S because he knew they could do it right and wanted to blow B v S out of the water. They announced it and scheduled it on B v S's release date. They took it's release date, then followed it and released a far superior film in BO totals, critic reviews and audience reviews. That's the trifecta. No amount of whining or debate will change that.

No, he did it because he know Cap, B'Widow, Hawkeye, and War Machine Lite weren't to going to stack up against three of the most famous comics characters ever. You can talk crap to your heart's content, but that's the truth.

[YoungJRNYfan]

No, he did it because he know Cap, B'Widow, Hawkeye, and War Machine Lite weren't to going to stack up against three of the most famous comics characters ever. You can talk crap to your heart's content, but that's the truth.

Yep. Feige pretty much panicked and said "Fuck it. Make Buck'America 2, Avengers 3 and Iron Man 4 but don't forget to add a little taste of Spider-Jizz ontop of it to pinch out the billion. GO."

[verslibre]

You know what cracks me up, one of the guys on the "other" forum said BvS should be called Justice League. (But the League doesn't exist in the film.)

But he also insisted Civil War is a proper Cap movie and shouldn't get the "Avengers 2.5" tag.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Not surprised to read about Harley Quinn solo movie. I would expect the DC cinematic universe to become more and more Bat-centric as time goes by. Like Journey playing nothing but the hits, sticking to Bat films is the safe bet.

[verslibre]

Except, you know, Wonder Woman. And the Green Lanterns.

[YoungJRNYfan]

You know what cracks me up, one of the guys on the "other" forum said BvS should be called Justice League. (But the League doesn't exist in the film.)

But he also insisted Civil War is a proper Cap movie and shouldn't get the "Avengers 2.5" tag.

How is that even possible when the Justice Leaguer's were only referred to by 'Easter Eggs'?

[verslibre]

The Atlantis scenes in "Justice League" movie will not be underwater similar to Aquaman's (Jason Momoa) appearance in "Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice" as director Zack Snyder has set up an elaborate "two arm" rig on a green screen stage with actors like Momoa clutched in one arm while the camera is clutched in the other. The two arms are pre-programmed to move in sync so that Momoa or other Atlantean characters can do all kinds of maneuvers while the camera moves around them.

I dig it.

http://en.yibada.com/articles/123758/20160516/justice-league-movie-rumors.htm