DC Extended Universe THREAD

[verslibre]

Oh, please...you don't think his time in SG:A has enough clips of Momoa's attempts of humor?

SG:A is irrelevant now, except to franchise nerdfans like you. To everyone else, Jason Momoa is now Khal Drogo — who was known for servicing the little blond girl in the first season of Game of Thrones — and Arthur Curry, aka Aquaman.

DC is staying true to their tone

No, they are not. I think they started making that change from being dark and serious before BvS was even released. The second trailer lightened it up. SS went from dark and serious to being almost as comedic as Deadpool.

Bullshit. There were jokes in the first Suicide Squad trailer. The trailers are tonally identical, music and dialogue and all. Remember, this is David Ayer directing. He pitched the project. Warner-DC did not come to him.

The second BvS trailer only differs from the first teaser, the Comic Con trailer and the final trailer in how it's cut and the "Is she with you?" line. The studio obviously wanted a trailer cut with a full Trinity shot.

Now Justice League shows us that they have mimic'd Marvel's style.

That is the biggest load of keee-rap you've dropped yet. What in JL constitutes "mimickry" of the "Marvel style"? Bruce Wayne throwing a batarang? Barry Allen saying he needs friends? That's just Barry. Arthur Curry draining a bottle of booze?

Talking about reaching for low-hanging fruit while lying on the ground...

Baha! Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. You can't be that Marvel-braindead. Oh wait, yes you can. If you want to start that, then credit Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy for the success's of Marvel bringing us their version of Batman to Marvel Studio's.

Only when you credit Tim Burton for his work on the first two Batman movies for paving the way for Nolan to make an even more serious version.

Only when you credit the tone of the TDK trilogy for that of The Winter Soldier.

What's wrong? You didn't see that coming, did you? Want a Quicksilver meme while we're at it?

Plus, Marvel attempted to inject an artificial tension into the Tony-Steve relationship in the second Civil War trailer when it was virtually nonexistent in the previous films, apart from fleeting jabs like "You're just a rich guy with a suit. Put on the suit." That's not the same as encountering a strange being who has run-ins with other beings who cause buildings to fall. What Steve and Tony had was more of the "Who's got a bigger dick?" variety.

For the record, the tone of Batman '89 is ALSO due to Frank Miller's bar-raising The Dark Knight Returns in the '80s. Batman '89 didn't spring from Burton's mind like Eve from Adam's rib.

If Nolan didn't want a closed Bat-universe, DC would of been well ahead.

If this and that...blah, blah, blah. DC didn't do it. Marvel did.

They finally made a good CBM thirty years after DC did? I agree.

And Marvel didn't invent comedy in superhero movies. In fact, they were only piggy-backing off of Sony's Spider-Man movies that were already well established.

Blah, blah, blah. I didn't say they did. Go rent Megamind.

What's your point? Sony's Spidey films predate Megamind (2010), a film which parodies elements of other films, including X-Men ("The Metro City Prison for the Gifted") and Spider-Man (J.K. Simmons).

And when it comes to parodies, MAD Magazine existed many decades earlier and first showed everyone how it's done.

Lets not get it twisted. They aren't pioneers. They just set a new market and had the time to build it.

Like I said, they created a path on how to do it. They paved it and added road signs to DC now knows what to do. Going off the road and trying to reinvent story telling DOES NOT WORK. I have said that forever. Marvel doesn't do try to reinvent story telling. Neither does Disney. So, now you have DC following the same path - because it is what works.

The only thing DC is doing differently now is putting their other characters together onscreen, which is many years overdue. The previous CEOs were not interested in doing this because they were not fans. I've said this before, and you completely gloss over it. You also gloss over the fact that Marvel did have films before Iron Man, and they're all campy, largely forgotten affairs like Roger Corman's Fantastic Four and Albert Pyun's Captain America. Under the "financial failure" header sits Howard the Duck.

Current WB CEO Kevin Tsujihara is a fan. Now they've installed Geoff Johns as the President of DC Entertainment. Geoff's a fan and career man. Ben Affleck has been given full creative control over The Batman, and likely its sequels. Now, all the correct players are in place.

George Miller's Justice League: Mortal, which would have predated Marvel's The Avengers by at least three years, had the proverbial rug pulled out from under it due to intra-studio turmoil and the writers' strike. Meanwhile, WB gave George other assignments. Like a good director who enjoys getting paid, he obliged.

And, indications are that Wonder Woman is going to follow that same story telling formula...of a hero's journey. It was already said in another post that the movie is all about her discovering her superdom 100yrs ago. That is what ALL of these origin films are about...average dude/girl or god loses his powers...make them relatable because they are like you. Put forth a reason to for them to leave their 'safe' world. Give said hero a gift, like a sword or a shield or a hammer or a lasso or an iron suit, send the hero on an adventure to battle bad things, hero meets friends to help him, hero finds he is better with friends, the 'gift' become extremely important to defeat the bad. Blah, blah, blah. That is what Wonder Woman is going to be about. It will follow the VERY SAME FORMULA that Iron Man 1, CA1, and Thor 1 did - exactly the same. Because that forumula is what works. It entertains. It gets repeat sales and DVD sales. It is what WB wants....not an arrogant Snyder thinking he can reinvent 10,000yrs of storytelling and releasing a crappy movie.

You mean the same formula Superman (1978) and Batman (1989) did: telling an origin. Those movies all came out many years before Iron Man (2008). Oops. You're forgetful in your old age.

[verslibre]

BvS failed to meet expectation. It should be expected that WB *REQUIRES* more of a pivot towards what Marvel has successfully done. Whether that be Suicide Squad being reshot to be less dark, or Justic Legaue starting out being just as full of humor as the Avengers, DC is following in Marvel's path. A path that Marvel not only founded, but paved and added road signs to...road signs that point the way to $'s.

I. Warner Bros. made Superman and Batman films for 20 years before a quality film (not a TV throwaway) featuring a Marvel character appeared, that being Blade, produced by Fox.

Ia. Blade appeared as the first major Marvel Comics film property (unless you want to count Howard the Duck) after the publisher sold off film rights to a number of characters in order to weather a major bankruptcy. That's why you see no "Marvel Studios" film until 2008.

II. There were only Superman and Batman films made by WB, along with Supergirl, Steel, and a pair of Swamp Thing films — from 1978-1998 because the head honchos in charge didn't want to bother with any other characters. However, the Supergirl movie's set in the same "universe" as the Superman films, but they removed a photographic reference to Superman/Clark in the film.

III. In the 2000s, Warner Brothers, Sony, and to a lesser extent, Fox, enjoyed box office success with the Nolan Batman films, the Raimi Spider-Man films, and a few films set within the X-Men universe (some of them don't set the box office on fire). A Superman quasi-reboot takes up space till Zack Snyder's reboot. Sony reboots Spider-Man five years after SM3. Green Lantern bombs in 2010.

IV. Marvel Studios finally follows suit with Iron Man in 2008, because they're tired of Sony/Columbia and Fox making money off their properties (LOL). They rush an admittedly inferior sequel, but it still made plenty of money to keep the proverbial ball rolling.

So tell me...what "roads" did Marvel really pave?

Hardly anything you wrote has anything to do with what you highlighted in my post.

Only within your corridors of delusion.

BTW, you forgot to mention the Daredevil and Elektra movies. May as well throw them in too, since you are all about throwing everything into Marvel's kitchen sink.

It's no hair off my chinchilla. However, I was referring to films considered critical and box office successes, not disappointments like Daredevil and Elektra...but it's no surprise that you again goosestep outside the chalk-lines of context.

The bottom line is that Marvel Studios is now a major film maker that successfully created a cinema universe for all of their characters to play in. They did it. Not just for a few characters. Not even just for the Avengers....but all of their characters. Even reaching to other media, like Agents of SHIELD. No other studio has done this to the extent of what Marvel has. That is a simply fact.

Except Toho. Don't believe me? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toho

Btw, you seem to have forgotten about those CW-DC TV shows like Arrow, The Flash, Legends of Tomorrow and Supergirl, which all occupy a shared universe, as does the cancelled Constantine (John C. appeared on Arrow and Matt Ryan is open to more guest appearances if his schedule permits) — and these shows are going to present a one-week-long event in the form of a show-crossing story arc. The move for film-TV counterparts is a deliberate one, which fits into DC's Infinite Earths model — which, as I just said two seconds ago, is intrinsic to DC, and not Marvel, so don't say Marvel did that first. DC has had this going on in their comics for over five decades.

Don't disregard Marvel's inability to use all their characters. That's why Civil War wasn't as good as it should have been, and that's why Infinity War won't be as good as it could be. The Netflix characters are being kept separate, when they should also appear in IW, but whatever.

It's also obvious that DC and WB WANT THE SAME THING.

Beat that war drum, dude! Beat it! Nah, maybe you should light up your peace pipe more often.

As far as shared universes go, it's a logical path. DC planned one years ago, but it hit a curb. So they're doing it now. They're not doing it "because Marvel."

Fox wants one more than anyone: Apart from Deadpool, they haven't had a true box-office-profit-earner since X-Men: The Last Stand. Where do you think Sony was going with the now-shelved Sinister Six film?

I forget: why exactly are your panties bunched up? Old suits out, new suits in. The "EU" in DCEU = Extended Universe. There's a shared universe on TV already. The shared film universe is now underway. Now why are you hating again? Oh, because you think Marvel invented the CBM? You're wrong.

But, they are NOT going to get there by the original "dark and serious" tone that BvS was to pioneer for the DCEU. It is just not profitable enough. That is the bottom line. So, now DC has sold out and are now doing things very much like Marvel has for years.

More bullshit, served piping-hot. Do you ask your co-workers to address you as "Sire" or "Pontifex"?

SS is proof enough for me. Of all of the movies on DC's schedule, this should have been the darkest and most serious. Instead, it has been turned into a comedy. It looks more like Guardians of the Galaxy than BvS. But, of course, you hypocrites will say it's by design...that the humor is fine in this, and blah, blah, blah.

I hope you have your bog boots on, because the brown stuff must be flowing through your workspace right about now.

For (hopefully) the last time, Squad is Ayer's baby. I see nothing different between the first and final trailers. Reshoots? So what? Civil War had 'em. The Force Awakens had 'em. Rogue One, too. Nobody's bitching. Except you.

Just as you will excuse Wonder Woman for being a cookie cutter super hero origin film, just like so many of Marvel's. You'll make up excuses about why it's better and why Marvel is worse....when WW is essentially the EXACT SAME STORY as CA, IM, and Thor.

No, it's Wonder Woman's story from the comics. The origin will be based on George Pérez's excellent late-'80s reboot, Post-Crisis and New 52 WW. Just as every other character on film since '78 has had an origin synthesized from various versions by different creators. You know, how Frank Miller's version of Batman has figured largely into the movies since '89, and Byrne's and Waid's takes on Superman since...no, really, you ARE this dense, aren't you?

And, then Justice League looks just like a DC version of Avengers. It's not this different thing as you guys were promoting it a while back.

Oh, STFU. A "DC version of Avengers." Puhleez. LMFAO! I can tell you that movie will be nothing like Avengers, and it will be a far better film, with better writing, better action and fight choreography, better VFX, better cinematography, and REAL stakes — not the bullshit fooled-you-again-haha!-nobody-was-ever-really-in-danger stakes. And don't bother referencing Quicksilver. He was a throwaway from the beginning because that's how Marvel passive-aggressively deals with things they have no control over. Fox's Evan Peters is the more popular version, and they hate that.

There is no "DC way" vs "Marvel way" that movie goers have a choice over....DC is doing exactly the same thing. The only difference is, Marvel showed DC they way.

Are you being compensated for all that OT?

[verslibre]

RDJR's Iron Man is Marvel's most bankable star and wherever they will need him, they'll shoe-horn in while they can. He was the star in the recent Captain America/Avengers film and they are really stretching out his contract with how many times they are allowed to use him in Spider-Man: Homecoming; just because. He is THEE link to everything. Films such as The First Avenger, Thor and Winter Soldier were basically films to skip to the next Avengers outing and reap the coattails of their universe. All those films did was hurry back to the Downey JR wank fest. It's quite clear. They can make all the D list movies they want, it's all a reacharound back to RDJR's Iron Man.

Undeniably so! Stark has just as much screen time in a film called Captain America: Civil War. But they didn't want to call it an Avengers movie because then they'd have to admit they were making one, per Feige.

]

LOL. The writers do...he has an Infinity Stone. That kinda makes him important.

People still actually care about Infinity Stones? I bet over 90% of the MCU audience still doesn't understand what the hell they even do.

HUGE references to the Infinity Gems in Civil War. HUGE! ...audiences didn't miss 'em at all. After that terrible Thanos post-credits scene in Ant-Man, people think he's just another punching bag waiting in the wings. They're totally dropping the stones when it comes to embellishing him as a cosmic threat. Well, maybe they can do something about in Hulk: Ragnarok since they'll be too tied up with origins in Doctor Strange and Black Panther.

Oh, please. People are not missing Wolverine or the X-Men.

So you're saying if the fans of the Marvel Universe had a choice, they would choose Vision and Scarlet Witch over fan favorites and possibly the most popular Marvel characters and stables of all time? Don't give Marvel Studio's too much credit. If the Wolverine or X-Men were available, you bet your ass they would of threw a character like Vision into the garbage a long time ago.

That is some monolithic ignorance on his part, eh? Wolverine has long been one of Marvel's most popular characters. Hell, yes, they'd love to have him in the MCU! But he's not going to come cheap. Fox has discovered Deadpool. Get ready for Deadpool v. Wolverine.

Them he said: "...it will not surprise me if another deal is made with Marvel to get them back." And then he added the FF to the mix.

He doesn't get it. The FF and the XM and all their nemeses & allies (like the Sh'iar) aren't going back to Marvel in some fire sale. Marvel held the fire sale back in '96, and like a collector who regrets selling off his rare albums, has discovered it's going to cost him a lot more to get 'em back!

The reason a deal was reached for Spider-Man was because Sony literally made NO money on ASM2 after every single revenue stream had been accounted for, all the way down to digital distribution. That's a pretty serious flop.

How's the BvS DVD sales? The way you two were talking earlier, it should be platinum by now. I seriously do not know how well it sold.

Funny you say that. The article about it's success was posted just 11 hours ago. The video sales for BvS is in AMAZING company...SW:TFA company:

[...]

Go ahead and try to disapprove the numbers. It's not opinion. It's just fact.

I can't wait to see what comes next.

[verslibre]

Besides, we all know Captain Marvel is being sped up following you know who's lead. Marvel has been doing this for a long time. You'd think they wouldn't lose that battle to a strong female-led film so quickly!

They changed the release date? I doubt that very much. Captain Marvel is in the middle of the two Infinity War movies for a reason. After Infinity War, IMO Captain Marvel will be set up to take over the Avengers....or maybe lead a new team. The Avengers will be getting a bit 'old' by then...2020 or so. When Captain Marvel is released has nothing to do with what DC is doing...it has to do with the story they are telling and the future stories of their universe. IMO, they CAN'T release it any earlier.

It has nothing to do with what DC is doing? Of course it does. DC is beating them to the punch with not only the first female-fronted CBM, but the greatest and most famous one in comics history. Myriad CBM articles discuss this. Marvel isn't concerned with what Fox and Sony are doing with their characters. They're concerned with what DC is doing, because the DCEU is now a presence and among its ranks are some of the most popular comic book characters known the world over.

You don't think Marvel shuffles dates? They have. Often. Compare the schedule in this 2015 article —

http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/10/8010259/marvel-moves-release-dates-because-spider-man

— to this 2016 article: http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/marvel/237462/full-marvel-movie-release-calendar

Black Panther was moved up to where Captain Marvel was, and the latter was moved back to where Inhumans was: 3/8/2019. That's a year and a month. Inhumans is currently off the slate, leading to speculation that it will turn up on Netflix, not in theaters.

Captain Marvel was pushed back because they hadn't finalized their actress choice. A lot of people aren't exactly bowled over by the choice of Brie Larson as Carol Danvers, either.

Marvel's strongest females are tied up at Fox, and their unwillingness to go in on a Black Widow movie is apparent — the biggest reason no doubt being ScarJo got 20 million for Age of Ultron, so she isn't going to take a pay cut at this stage, and recasting the character isn't an option until after 2020.

You probably forgot (duh), but a couple years back when DC's slate was leaked after an investors' meeting, Marvel staged a junket in Hollywood as a response. They made a big hoopla about it: it was emceed by Feige, and Downey and Evans appeared onstage. They also brought out Boseman to introduce him as Black Panther. Captain Marvel (with a different logo that resembled a certain '80s graphic novel, and stained by Kree blood) was revealed as part of that slate because Wonder Woman was on DC's. The difference is that one studio was busy screen testing actresses for an existing part, and the other studio was announcing their film purely as a reaction. Marvel had no story, no actress possibles, nothing. All they did was slap the title with a release date like a magnet on a refrigerator.

Since then, Marvel's been taking the Captain Marvel movie one cautious step at a time. They figure if DC does the leg work with Wonder Woman (and that trailer turned out to be the overwhelming Comic Con favorite), audiences will be more receptive to a Marvel heroine leading her own film.

Marvel is watching everything DC does.

[verslibre]

https://twitter.com/scotteweinberg/status/759274904810295296

[verslibre]

15 Powers You Didn’t Know Wonder Woman Had

http://screenrant.com/powers-you-did-not-know-wonder-woman-had/

[verslibre]

[RedWingFan]

DC is beating them to the punch with not only the first female-fronted CBM, but the greatest and most famous one in comics history.

Yeah, I'm sure Marvel is shaking in their boots with how DC bombed with the most famous MALE comic book hero in history. Lol

[verslibre]

DC is beating them to the punch with not only the first female-fronted CBM, but the greatest and most famous one in comics history.

Yeah, I'm sure Marvel is shaking in their boots with how DC bombed with the most famous MALE comic book hero in history. Lol

Batman? The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises both grossed over 1 billion. No other "super" characters in those films unless they're villains (which includes Catwoman).

The Batman starring and directed by Ben Affleck is coming, boy-o!

And yes, DC has and will receive accolades for making the first modern* female-centric CBM. Marvel has no faith in their women.

*They did it before in the '80s with Supergirl.

[Monker]

DC is beating them to the punch with not only the first female-fronted CBM, but the greatest and most famous one in comics history.

Yeah, I'm sure Marvel is shaking in their boots with how DC bombed with the most famous MALE comic book hero in history. Lol

Batman? The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises both grossed over 1 billion. No other "super" characters in those films unless they're villains (which includes Catwoman).

It makes no difference how many "Super" characters are in these films. Again, please count the number of "Supers" in XMEN:A and apply your theory. It probably should have been a two billion dollar film if the number of heros mean anything at all.

All people want is to see a good film the number of heroes isn't what matter....how good the film is what matter. My God, even BvS proves this.

The Batman starring and directed by Ben Affleck is coming, boy-o!

So? No one is arguing that. Superman is the franchise that is in trouble.

And yes, DC has and will receive accolades for making the first modern* female-centric CBM. Marvel has no faith in their women

So? If Wonder Woman sucks, it won't matter....

And, Captain Marvel will be here when the time is right. If they rushed it out and made a mediocre movie out of if, you'd complain about that, too. CA getting movie right is much more important than beating some weird timeline that you are inventing in your head that you want Marvel to follow.

If seems to me that Marvel's philosophy is to let DC have whatever firsts...and Marvel sticks to their timeline and makes the better movie. At least that is what happened with BvS and CA;CW.

*They did it before in the '80s with Supergirl.

And, BTW, Red Sonja was also a CBM and it came out at around that same time....which shared the same "universe" as Arny's "Conan".

[Monker]

Besides, we all know Captain Marvel is being sped up following you know who's lead. Marvel has been doing this for a long time. You'd think they wouldn't lose that battle to a strong female-led film so quickly!

They changed the release date? I doubt that very much. Captain Marvel is in the middle of the two Infinity War movies for a reason. After Infinity War, IMO Captain Marvel will be set up to take over the Avengers....or maybe lead a new team. The Avengers will be getting a bit 'old' by then...2020 or so. When Captain Marvel is released has nothing to do with what DC is doing...it has to do with the story they are telling and the future stories of their universe. IMO, they CAN'T release it any earlier.

It has nothing to do with what DC is doing? Of course it does. DC is beating them to the punch with not only the first female-fronted CBM, but the greatest and most famous one in comics history. Myriad CBM articles discuss this. Marvel isn't concerned with what Fox and Sony are doing with their characters. They're concerned with what DC is doing, because the DCEU is now a presence and among its ranks are some of the most popular comic book characters known the world over.

You don't think Marvel shuffles dates? They have. Often. Compare the schedule in this 2015 article —

http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/10/8010259/marvel-moves-release-dates-because-spider-man

— to this 2016 article: http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/marvel/237462/full-marvel-movie-release-calendar

Black Panther was moved up to where Captain Marvel was, and the latter was moved back to where Inhumans was: 3/8/2019. That's a year and a month. Inhumans is currently off the slate, leading to speculation that it will turn up on Netflix, not in theaters.

Captain Marvel was pushed back because they hadn't finalized their actress choice. A lot of people aren't exactly bowled over by the choice of Brie Larson as Carol Danvers, either.

Marvel's strongest females are tied up at Fox, and their unwillingness to go in on a Black Widow movie is apparent — the biggest reason no doubt being ScarJo got 20 million for Age of Ultron, so she isn't going to take a pay cut at this stage, and recasting the character isn't an option until after 2020.

You probably forgot (duh), but a couple years back when DC's slate was leaked after an investors' meeting, Marvel staged a junket in Hollywood as a response. They made a big hoopla about it: it was emceed by Feige, and Downey and Evans appeared onstage. They also brought out Boseman to introduce him as Black Panther. Captain Marvel (with a different logo that resembled a certain '80s graphic novel, and stained by Kree blood) was revealed as part of that slate because Wonder Woman was on DC's. The difference is that one studio was busy screen testing actresses for an existing part, and the other studio was announcing their film purely as a reaction. Marvel had no story, no actress possibles, nothing. All they did was slap the title with a release date like a magnet on a refrigerator.

Since then, Marvel's been taking the Captain Marvel movie one cautious step at a time. They figure if DC does the leg work with Wonder Woman (and that trailer turned out to be the overwhelming Comic Con favorite), audiences will be more receptive to a Marvel heroine leading her own film.

Marvel is watching everything DC does.

The "since then," bit is nothing but you trying to extrapolate meaning that simply doesn't exist. Marvel would be foolish to move the Captain Marvel movie from where it is right now...and they were smart to put it there. What you are guessing about makes no logical sense - at all. Even if they added a CM movie in response to WW, Marvel is not dumb enough to just throw it on the schedule to beat DC, or to sit back and watch DC and allow them to somehow influence when to release the movie. That is plain stupidity.

I have no doubt that Marvel watches everything that DC is doing. I have no doubt that DC watches everything that Marvel is doing. But, I do not see Marvel making changes to their release dates because of some goofy assertion that Marvels releases depend on DC's timeline in any way. If fact, it is DC that moved the BvS release date, not Marvel. So, DC has a bit of a track record of not wanting to compete directly and movie their movie accordlingly.

[Monker]

It has nothing to do with what DC is doing? Of course it does. DC is beating them to the punch with not only the first female-fronted CBM, but the greatest and most famous one in comics history. Myriad CBM articles discuss this. Marvel isn't concerned with what Fox and Sony are doing with their characters. They're concerned with what DC is doing, because the DCEU is now a presence and among its ranks are some of the most popular comic book characters known the world over.

None of that matters. They placed Captain Marvel between the two Infinity War movies. To me, that means she is going to have a significant role in the Infinity War. That is what she is being written for. It means that her role in that story can't simply be scooped out and move up a year or two, regardless of how well Wonder Woman does. It obvious that Captain Marvel is going to be a lead character in Marvel movies following Infinity War. They are not going to move her movie up and take her out of that prime slot - between the two Infinity War movies.

You don't think Marvel shuffles dates? They have. Often. Compare the schedule in this 2015 article

Oh, come on, I know this. But, they are trying to tell a bigger story. Civil War had to be told before Infinity War. Ragnorok needs to be told before Infinity War. Black Panther had to be introduced his solo movie before Infinity War. If Doctor Strange takes part, he had to be introduced before Infinity War. Spiderman had to be introduced and his movie prior to Inffinity War...if they use him.

Now, Captain Marvel. IMO, the big plans for her are POST Infinity War. IMO, she will have a big part in part 2 and that will set up her second movie and where the Marvel characters go post Avengers. That is MY speculation...*I* am extrapolating from the story told so far and what I know is going to be a big blow up in Infinity War, and what Marvel has done with the Avengers in the past.

Inhumans is currently off the slate, leading to speculation that it will turn up on Netflix, not in theaters.

IMO, it depends on the future of Agents of SHIELD. If they do an Inhumans movie, it would be better placed after Infinity War when they are a bit more open. However, for that to happen their story has to survive Agents of SHIELD for a long time...and maybe a Inhumans series on Netflix is not a bad idea because of that.

Captain Marvel was pushed back because they hadn't finalized their actress choice. A lot of people aren't exactly bowled over by the choice of Brie Larson as Carol Danvers, either.

Prove it.

Marvel's strongest females are tied up at Fox, and their unwillingness to go in on a Black Widow movie is apparent — the biggest reason no doubt being ScarJo got 20 million for Age of Ultron, so she isn't going to take a pay cut at this stage, and recasting the character isn't an option until after 2020.

Fiege has said he's open to a Black Widow movie now. IMO, it's just not needed right now. I really don't see the point.

You probably forgot (duh), but a couple years back when DC's slate was leaked after an investors' meeting, Marvel staged a junket in Hollywood as a response. They made a big hoopla about it: it was emceed by Feige, and Downey and Evans appeared onstage. They also brought out Boseman to introduce him as Black Panther. Captain Marvel (with a different logo that resembled a certain '80s graphic novel, and stained by Kree blood) was revealed as part of that slate because Wonder Woman was on DC's. The difference is that one studio was busy screen testing actresses for an existing part, and the other studio was announcing their film purely as a reaction. Marvel had no story, no actress possibles, nothing. All they did was slap the title with a release date like a magnet on a refrigerator.

Since then, Marvel's been taking the Captain Marvel movie one cautious step at a time. They figure if DC does the leg work with Wonder Woman (and that trailer turned out to be the overwhelming Comic Con favorite), audiences will be more receptive to a Marvel heroine leading her own film.

Marvel is watching everything DC does.

See other post.

[Monker]

Btw, you seem to have forgotten about those CW-DC TV shows like Arrow, The Flash, Legends of Tomorrow and Supergirl, which all occupy a shared universe, as does the cancelled Constantine

I didn't realiize those shows started before Marvel built their MCU. How long before Iron Man (2008) did this shared universe begin?

Don't disregard Marvel's inability to use all their characters.

Marvel ended Fantastic Four a while back and now is ending the X-Men....it seems Marvel is disregarding them.

That's why Civil War wasn't as good as it should have been, and that's why Infinity War won't be as good as it could be. The Netflix characters are being kept separate, when they should also appear in IW, but whatever.

Blah, bllah, blah....Civil War is just fine the way it is. Maybe if DC lost the rights to some their characters, BvS would have been as good.

As far as shared universes go, it's a logical path. DC planned one years ago, but it hit a curb. So they're doing it now. They're not doing it "because Marvel."

Yeah, big deal. Xerox tried to create a GUI based computer operating system. But, Apple came along and did it, and then Microsoft did it again. I don't think anybody cares what Xerox is doing with their GUI nowadays....because Apple and Microsoft both own the market. Right now, DC is CBM''s version of Xerox.

I forget: why exactly are your panties bunched up? Old suits out, new suits in. The "EU" in DCEU = Extended Universe. There's a shared universe on TV already. The shared film universe is now underway. Now why are you hating again? Oh, because you think Marvel invented the CBM? You're wrong.

It's you two who can't stand the fact that DC is following Marvel's footsteps by making their movies less dark, more comedic, and origin "hero journey" cookie-cutter movies. That is what DC is doing because that is how you make money with these movies....not by attempting to invent new ways of telling stories, like what happened in BvS.

But, they are NOT going to get there by the original "dark and serious" tone that BvS was to pioneer for the DCEU. It is just not profitable enough. That is the bottom line. So, now DC has sold out and are now doing things very much like Marvel has for years.

More bullshit, served piping-hot. Do you ask your co-workers to address you as "Sire" or "Pontifex"?

No, it's a fact. Neither SS nor JL are "Dark"....not in the same way your precious Nolan's Batman is anyway.

Just as you will excuse Wonder Woman for being a cookie cutter super hero origin film, just like so many of Marvel's. You'll make up excuses about why it's better and why Marvel is worse....when WW is essentially the EXACT SAME STORY as CA, IM, and Thor.

No, it's Wonder Woman's story from the comics. The origin will be based on George Pérez's excellent late-'80s reboot, Post-Crisis and New 52 WW. Just as every other character on film since '78 has had an origin synthesized from various versions by different creators. You know, how Frank Miller's version of Batman has figured largely into the movies since '89, and Byrne's and Waid's takes on Superman since...no, really, you ARE this dense, aren't you?

Blah, blah, blah....I don't care where this typical, cookie-butter, origin story originated from. It's still a typical, cookie-cutter origin story. And, you are a hypcorite for not recognizing and critiquing the movie over that fact.

Oh, STFU. A "DC version of Avengers." Puhleez. LMFAO!

Yep, that's what it is.

I can tell you that movie will be nothing like Avengers, and it will be a far better film

Yep, you can tell me that but the fact that you still spin accolades of BvS as if it was the movie of the year tells me that you would refuse to recognize the similarities regardless of how obvious they are.

And don't bother referencing Quicksilver.

Well, from what I saw, Quicksilver is now in the Justice League. DC did a very good job of bringing FOX's Quicksilver over and mimicing all of the SFX FOX used in X-Men. It's great that they didn't have to come up with any original ideas on how to show his abilities or anything like that. I'm just wondering what they are going to do with Flash now.

[verslibre]

Batman? The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises both grossed over 1 billion. No other "super" characters in those films unless they're villains (which includes Catwoman).

It makes no difference how many "Super" characters are in these films.

See: Captain America: Civil War.

Again, please count the number of "Supers" in XMEN:A and apply your theory. It probably should have been a two billion dollar film if the number of heros mean anything at all.

My point is those are Batman films. Not Superfriends. Not Batman & Robin. Not Batman Meets the Phantom of the Park.

All people want is to see a good film the number of heroes isn't what matter....how good the film is what matter. My God, even BvS proves this.

Stop procrastinating and watch the Ultimate Edition, then. A whole bunch of armchair critics reversed their stance after doing so. It's the preferred version of BvS. Can you say "vindicated"? The only d-bag who won't watch it is Faraci, but he's a d-bag.

The Batman starring and directed by Ben Affleck is coming, boy-o!

So? No one is arguing that. Superman is the franchise that is in trouble.

No, it's not. Man of Steel left Superman Returns in the dust. It grossed more than all the MCU Phase One films minus Avengers.

All the whiners are beginning to realize the story arc that's in place for Superman. They were so focused on their complaining (even though the Blue Boy Scout was present in Superman Returns, a movie everyone realized afterward they did not want), they didn't realize the light-dark-light motif intrinsic to the first set of DCEU films.

And yes, DC has and will receive accolades for making the first modern* female-centric CBM. Marvel has no faith in their women

So? If Wonder Woman sucks, it won't matter...

You're like a warped record. All you add is "If so & so DC film sucks," blah, blah, blah. You add very little to the actual discussion.

And, Captain Marvel will be here when the time is right.

And THERE it is. More wholesale preapproval of anything Marvel-centric. "When the time is right" means whenever they finally get the f-ing movie out. It's been hinted at, it's been promised, it's been added to the slate, and it's been moved. And they just BARELY cast it. But they've been talking about it for years. Shit, they should've just went for it since Ragnarok got pushed back four years because The Dark World made 70 million less than The Winter Soldier.

If they rushed it out and made a mediocre movie out of if, you'd complain about that, too. CA getting movie right is much more important than beating some weird timeline that you are inventing in your head that you want Marvel to follow.

No, I'd do something you're incapable of: move on.

If seems to me that Marvel's philosophy is to let DC have whatever firsts...and Marvel sticks to their timeline and makes the better movie. At least that is what happened with BvS and CA;CW.

Not if you compare it to the Ultimate Edition. Civil War is loaded with plot contrivances. Vision is left out of the opening of the film to force the Accords. Black Widow is out of character just so she can be the one to stop Black Panther. Falcon is given Spider Sense so he can dodge Vision's energy blast, which hits War Machine. Iron Man can't catch War Machine even though he performs an aerial ballet in Iron Man 3 and rescues an entire group of people in freefall. Zemo, an ordinary soldier, dupes the whole of the Avengers like he's a poor man's Ernst Blofeld. Bucky poses sans mask for some security footage so there's absolutely no way Tony can miss him being the guy who killed his parents. Howard Stark is transporting super soldier serum in the trunk of the car without a government escort, so it's extra-easy for the Winter Soldier to perform his assignment. Then we learn The Winter Soldier is just "a" winter soldier, which was a really bad move.

*They did it before in the '80s with Supergirl.

And, BTW, Red Sonja was also a CBM and it came out at around that same time....which shared the same "universe" as Arny's "Conan".

Nope! Ahnuld didn't play Conan in Red Sonja. He played a throwaway called Kalidor, a role originally intended be a glorified cameo. They were legally unable to use the name "Conan"! Ahnuld's name was only there to sell tickets. He got sucked into weeks of filming. They also tried to use "Stormbringer" till they got a call from Michael Moorcock's lawyers.

Don't assume all of Robert E. Howard's characters were connected and/or existed in essentially the same (Hyborean) age, which is incorrect. Conan of Cimmeria and Red Sonya (with a y, not a j) were never contemporaries, nor were they even geographically connected. Red Sonja was appropriated by Roy Thomas for the Marvel comic. But the movie was not based on the comic, which was in its third and last ongoing incarnation under Marvel, and months away from cancellation.

Also, Supergirl came out in 1984, while Red Sonja came out in 1985.

Marc McClure plays Jimmy Olsen in all four Superman films from 1978-87, and in Supergirl. There's also this, which I've posted before:

Christopher Reeve bowed out just before filming began. He was slated to make a cameo as Superman, but was unavailable; the film still features a picture of Reeves in costume in a brief cameo.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088206/trivia?ref_=tt_ql_trv_1

THAT, Bucko, is called a SHARED UNIVERSE.

[verslibre]

It has nothing to do with what DC is doing? Of course it does. DC is beating them to the punch with not only the first female-fronted CBM, but the greatest and most famous one in comics history. Myriad CBM articles discuss this. Marvel isn't concerned with what Fox and Sony are doing with their characters. They're concerned with what DC is doing, because the DCEU is now a presence and among its ranks are some of the most popular comic book characters known the world over.

None of that matters. They placed Captain Marvel between the two Infinity War movies. To me, that means she is going to have a significant role in the Infinity War. That is what she is being written for. It means that her role in that story can't simply be scooped out and move up a year or two, regardless of how well Wonder Woman does. It obvious that Captain Marvel is going to be a lead character in Marvel movies following Infinity War. They are not going to move her movie up and take her out of that prime slot - between the two Infinity War movies.

You overestimate everything. Go ahead and ignore how Thor 3 sat around without a script for over two years. At the Age of Ultron panel at Comic Con two years ago, Hemsworth got asked for an update and he literally had nothing to say. He fumbled his way through a "they're working on it." You could tell he'd rather have not been asked that question, while Captain America 3 was already in development.

Look: Ant-Man & The Wasp got added to the slate (July 2018), while Black Panther got moved back to accommodate Spider-Man: Homecoming, which will undoubtedly be a big-grossing movie. And they know that. So Captain Marvel got slid back to 2019. Notice that it's in March, a month originally deemed unpopular for big genre films, but not after BvS opened in late March. All this shuffling means there is plenty of wiggle room. Proof? Spidey getting wedged into Civil War. The final draft got another pass when they found out Sony was going to let them use him. Don't say it's because the "time was right"...unless you mean "the time was right for Spider-Man to help them make mo' money!"

You don't think Marvel shuffles dates? They have. Often. Compare the schedule in this 2015 article

Oh, come on, I know this. But, they are trying to tell a bigger story. Civil War had to be told before Infinity War.

Wrong. IMO, it should've been a post-Infinity War duology. (In the comics, that's right, Infinity War predates Civil War.) A homegrown multi-film arc would've been the perfect follow-up to a cosmic saga. I bet by then they would've completed negotiations to use the mutants and the Fantastic characters, and been able to use Spider-Man properly like in the actual story. But nope, Feige felt he had to try to one-up BvS no matter what.

Ragnorok needs to be told before Infinity War.

No, it doesn't. Ragnarok was a self-contained storyline. I'm fully confident they're going to fuck that one up, anyway.

Black Panther had to be introduced his solo movie before Infinity War. If Doctor Strange takes part, he had to be introduced before Infinity War. Spiderman had to be introduced and his movie prior to Inffinity War...if they use him.

Spider-Man has been an Avenger. He'll be in those movies. They've got him now and he sells tickets.

Now, Captain Marvel. IMO, the big plans for her are POST Infinity War. IMO, she will have a big part in part 2 and that will set up her second movie and where the Marvel characters go post Avengers. That is MY speculation...*I* am extrapolating from the story told so far and what I know is going to be a big blow up in Infinity War, and what Marvel has done with the Avengers in the past.

It sure is, "speculation" being key.

Inhumans is currently off the slate, leading to speculation that it will turn up on Netflix, not in theaters.

IMO, it depends on the future of Agents of SHIELD. If they do an Inhumans movie, it would be better placed after Infinity War when they are a bit more open. However, for that to happen their story has to survive Agents of SHIELD for a long time...and maybe a Inhumans series on Netflix is not a bad idea because of that.

The existence of an Inhumans film or series doesn't hinge on the future of Agents of SHIELD, which has been shifted to the death-knell Saturday night slot for series that run one final season before they get the axe. And Netflix didn't pick up Agent Carter.

Captain Marvel was pushed back because they hadn't finalized their actress choice. A lot of people aren't exactly bowled over by the choice of Brie Larson as Carol Danvers, either.

Prove it.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/article/captain-marvel-writer-deconnick-comments-on-brie-larson-casting

With some backlash starting to stir against Brie Larson being chosen to play Captain Marvel, former "Captain Marvel" writer Kelly Sue DeConnick throws support her way.

Some die-hard fans have been coming down hard on the actress following the announcement, but despite any differences between Larson and Carol in the comics, DeConnick vehemently disagrees with the negative reaction. "I don’t want that to undermine my support of a young woman who has a billion-dollar franchise on her shoulders. I am emphatically on her team no matter how old she is, because she’s the one who got it." said DeConnick.

More? Five anti-Brie topics, right on the landing page.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4154664/board/?ref_=tt_bd_sm

You're more than welcome to scan the forums at CBR and SHH, too. (I know you're too lazy to bother.)

Marvel's strongest females are tied up at Fox, and their unwillingness to go in on a Black Widow movie is apparent — the biggest reason no doubt being ScarJo got 20 million for Age of Ultron, so she isn't going to take a pay cut at this stage, and recasting the character isn't an option until after 2020.

Fiege has said he's open to a Black Widow movie now. IMO, it's just not needed right now. I really don't see the point.

Shit. Stop making excuses. By the time they want to bother, nobody will give a fuck about a Black Widow movie. ScarJo will be cashing her Lucy sequel checks.

You probably forgot (duh), but a couple years back when DC's slate was leaked after an investors' meeting, Marvel staged a junket in Hollywood as a response. They made a big hoopla about it: it was emceed by Feige, and Downey and Evans appeared onstage. They also brought out Boseman to introduce him as Black Panther. Captain Marvel (with a different logo that resembled a certain '80s graphic novel, and stained by Kree blood) was revealed as part of that slate because Wonder Woman was on DC's. The difference is that one studio was busy screen testing actresses for an existing part, and the other studio was announcing their film purely as a reaction. Marvel had no story, no actress possibles, nothing. All they did was slap the title with a release date like a magnet on a refrigerator.

Since then, Marvel's been taking the Captain Marvel movie one cautious step at a time. They figure if DC does the leg work with Wonder Woman (and that trailer turned out to be the overwhelming Comic Con favorite), audiences will be more receptive to a Marvel heroine leading her own film.

Marvel is watching everything DC does.

The "since then," bit is nothing but you trying to extrapolate meaning that simply doesn't exist.

Prove it. Oh, you can't. Because it wasn't even on the slate, or talked about being added to the slate, until the Wonder Woman film had been revealed as a part of DC's slate. Once again, you're treading water, and getting nowhere fast. Maybe a big beefy Fabio-esque lifeguard will jump in to rescue you.

Marvel would be foolish to move the Captain Marvel movie from where it is right now...and they were smart to put it there.

Of courrrrrrrse they were!

KEVIN: Hey, what's rhymes with Spider-Man and will make a shitload more money than a "Captain Marvel"?

I swear, you're hilarious.

What you are guessing about makes no logical sense - at all. Even if they added a CM movie in response to WW, Marvel is not dumb enough to just throw it on the schedule to beat DC, or to sit back and watch DC and allow them to somehow influence when to release the movie. That is plain stupidity.

But they did, and you nothing you say will disprove that. Because that's what happened. You're just tooting out your blowhole at your own expense. You're not getting any kickbacks.

I have no doubt that Marvel watches everything that DC is doing. I have no doubt that DC watches everything that Marvel is doing. But, I do not see Marvel making changes to their release dates because of some goofy assertion that Marvels releases depend on DC's timeline in any way. If fact, it is DC that moved the BvS release date, not Marvel. So, DC has a bit of a track record of not wanting to compete directly and movie their movie accordlingly.

BvS had first been moved BACK from a Summer 2015 slot because they wanted a little more time to pass between Nolan-BatBale and Batfleck, and for more time to work on VFX. BvS was moved into the May slot when only "Untitled Marvel Movie" was sharing the date. Cap 3 got added/confirmed later. No official title. Finally, BvS was moved UP into a convenient end-of-March slot (Dean Devlin's Geostorm had been scheduled, but it moved out) where it would have maximum room to perform. Both studios were glad to not release movies in the same weekend. That would as stupid as either/or opening a movie in tandem with a new Star Wars movie.

Wonder Woman is going to have plenty of competition, too. She's not moving.

[verslibre]

Btw, you seem to have forgotten about those CW-DC TV shows like Arrow, The Flash, Legends of Tomorrow and Supergirl, which all occupy a shared universe, as does the cancelled Constantine

I didn't realiize those shows started before Marvel built their MCU. How long before Iron Man (2008) did this shared universe begin?

Agents of SHIELD didn't begin until 2013 and wasn't planned back in 2008. None of the TV/Netflix shows were. When Iron Man landed, there was only Iron Man, the first card down on the felt. Don't pretend it was "all part of the plan" or any of that bullshit.

DC has had a television presence for decades, with a row of shows like Lois & Clark, Smallville, Human Target, Birds of Prey, Constantine multiple incarnations of The Flash, etc. The forthcoming Krypton on SyFy is a MoS prequel. Arrow (which began in 2012), The Flash, Legends of Tomorrow, and Supergirl will feature a nightly week-long arc. Gotham is a standalone show.

Don't disregard Marvel's inability to use all their characters.

Marvel ended Fantastic Four a while back and now is ending the X-Men....it seems Marvel is disregarding them.

They are as a REACTION, because Fox won't sell them back. Marvel will have to spend money to get them back, hence my collector's analogy in a previous post, Sherlock.

Maybe if DC lost the rights to some their characters, BvS would have been as good.

Dumb remarks like this show you sinking further and further into the quicksand of desperation. So have you watched the Ultimate Edition or are you going to pull a Faraci?

As far as shared universes go, it's a logical path. DC planned one years ago, but it hit a curb. So they're doing it now. They're not doing it "because Marvel."

Yeah, big deal. Xerox tried to create a GUI based computer operating system. But, Apple came along and did it, and then Microsoft did it again. I don't think anybody cares what Xerox is doing with their GUI nowadays....because Apple and Microsoft both own the market. Right now, DC is CBM''s version of Xerox.

"Yeah, big deal" is exactly what you should be saying about Marvel's inability to use the X-Men and Fantastic Four in the MCU. Except to Marvel, it IS a big deal. The FF will sit in limbo until Fox produces another reboot. And there isn't shit Marvel can do about it.

I forget: why exactly are your panties bunched up? Old suits out, new suits in. The "EU" in DCEU = Extended Universe. There's a shared universe on TV already. The shared film universe is now underway. Now why are you hating again? Oh, because you think Marvel invented the CBM? You're wrong.

It's you two who can't stand the fact that DC is following Marvel's footsteps by making their movies less dark, more comedic, and origin "hero journey" cookie-cutter movies. That is what DC is doing because that is how you make money with these movies....not by attempting to invent new ways of telling stories, like what happened in BvS.

More delusion. What's Superman (1978)? What's Batman (1989)? What's Batman Begins (2005)? What's Man of Steel (2013)? DC is doing what they've been doing for decades. Shit, throw Swamp Thing and Supergirl and even Steel in the mix if you want.

Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman, and Justice League are not examples of DC "following in Marvel's footsteps."

But, they are NOT going to get there by the original "dark and serious" tone that BvS was to pioneer for the DCEU. It is just not profitable enough. That is the bottom line. So, now DC has sold out and are now doing things very much like Marvel has for years.

Different characters, different stories, different movies. It's a simple formula that you can't seem to wrap your head around. Looks fine from over here. You're going to be super-pissed when The Batman is a dark film, and a profitable film.

No, it's a fact. Neither SS nor JL are "Dark"....not in the same way your precious Nolan's Batman is anyway.

Again, different characters. Nevertheless, Justice League will still be a darker, more intense film than anything Joss Whedon can cobble together. You've allowed yourself to be misguided by a few choice lines of dialogue. "I need friends" doesn't mean the movie's going to be an update of Far Out Space Nuts.

No, it's Wonder Woman's story from the comics. The origin will be based on George Pérez's excellent late-'80s reboot, Post-Crisis and New 52 WW. Just as every other character on film since '78 has had an origin synthesized from various versions by different creators. You know, how Frank Miller's version of Batman has figured largely into the movies since '89, and Byrne's and Waid's takes on Superman since...no, really, you ARE this dense, aren't you?

Blah, blah, blah....I don't care where this typical, cookie-butter, origin story originated from. It's still a typical, cookie-cutter origin story. And, you are a hypcorite for not recognizing and critiquing the movie over that fact.

If I'm a "hypcorite" (LOL), then you're a coprolite.

Yeah, SO cookie cutter. Created by William Moulton Marston and his wife Elizabeth in 1940.

William Moulton Marston, a psychologist already famous for inventing the polygraph, struck upon an idea for a new kind of superhero, one who would triumph not with fists or firepower, but with love. "Fine," said Elizabeth. "But make her a woman."

That's decades before Iron Man or Spider-Man or Thor. The only Marvel heroes around today who go back that far are Captain America and Human Torch (Jim Hammond, not the Johnny Storm version created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby in 1961).

Go read up on Wonder Woman's comics history. It's a far richer, more textured history than most other comics characters.

You're also correct in calling Iron Man a cookie-cutter hero's journey-origin film, since Stan Lee modeled Tony Stark after Bruce Wayne, and his retconned origin involves the murder of his parents, just like Bruce's.

Oh, STFU. A "DC version of Avengers." Puhleez. LMFAO!

Yep, that's what it is.

Go read some back issues of Justice League.

Yep, you can tell me that but the fact that you still spin accolades of BvS as if it was the movie of the year tells me that you would refuse to recognize the similarities regardless of how obvious they are.

You've seen a rough cut of Justice League? I didn't know you and Zack were so tight. Does he know you talk shit about him?

And don't bother referencing Quicksilver.

Well, from what I saw, Quicksilver is now in the Justice League. DC did a very good job of bringing FOX's Quicksilver over and mimicing all of the SFX FOX used in X-Men. It's great that they didn't have to come up with any original ideas on how to show his abilities or anything like that. I'm just wondering what they are going to do with Flash now.

Now that reeks of desperation. The FX on the CW Flash show look better than those in X-Men and Age of Ultron, and the FX in League's sizzle reel looked even better. And that movie's nowhere near done!

[verslibre]

Excerpt of a new David Ayer interview. Check out the third question.

What was your opinion of Batman V. Superman?

I liked it a lot. I love Zack; he is probably the biggest fan of DC Comics. He has an incredible passion in a very specific way, a specific take on it. He's a smart guy, and I think he heard everybody, he heard them loud and clear, and you grow and you evolve. I thought it was a stunning movie, absolutely stunning. I wish I could get some of those shots in the can. The guy's an amazing visualist.

Is this a world you'd like to continue playing in? Is there another Suicide Squad story you'd like to tell?

It is sort of addictive, I'll tell you that. Having all these resources and working at this scale, and it is great to work on something that gets so much attention. We'll see. We made this really cool, crazy film family, let's see where the journey takes us and see how the fans respond to the film.

What DC character would you like to tackle if the opportunity were to present itself?

If everything was on the table? I love Superman, I think Superman would be amazing. There's so many; it's such an insanely rich universe, there's so much depth to it. You could literally open up the encyclopedia of characters and stab your finger at a page and you'd have an amazing character.

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/david-ayer-talks-to-us-about-suicide-squad-dceu-joker-superman-and-more-106-02

[Monker]

Batman? The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises both grossed over 1 billion. No other "super" characters in those films unless they're villains (which includes Catwoman).

It makes no difference how many "Super" characters are in these films.

See: Captain America: Civil War.

XMEN:A has more heroes than Civil War and BvS combined and it tanked. The number of heroes doesn't matter.

Again, please count the number of "Supers" in XMEN:A and apply your theory. It probably should have been a two billion dollar film if the number of heros mean anything at all.

My point is those are Batman films. Not Superfriends. Not Batman & Robin. Not Batman Meets the Phantom of the Park. [/quote]

Oh, so you mean it was like when Batman and Green Hornet crossed over on TV. That was good stuff.

You are making any excuse you can to make Civil War not a "Captain America" film. Here's a secret what your opinion is on that - it's a good film, one of the best, and THAT is why so many people saw it.

All people want is to see a good film the number of heroes isn't what matter....how good the film is what matter. My God, even BvS proves this.

Stop procrastinating and watch the Ultimate Edition, then. A whole bunch of armchair critics reversed their stance after doing so. It's the preferred version of BvS. Can you say "vindicated"? The only d-bag who won't watch it is Faraci, but he's a d-bag.

Oh, so now that critics favor the DVD release the critics really DO matter. You two spent months saying they don't matter. One of you even over analyzed it to the point where your favorite movies and looked up how critics rated them in some attempt to prove, I really don't know, that you favor movies critics hate? Make up your mind.

And yes, DC has and will receive accolades for making the first modern* female-centric CBM. Marvel has no faith in their women

So? If Wonder Woman sucks, it won't matter...

You're like a warped record. All you add is "If so & so DC film sucks," blah, blah, blah. You add very little to the actual discussion.

Well, that's because BvS sucks.

Look, you are making all of these huge conclusions. But, one small obstacle (WW being more like a Thor movie than you want it to be, and very mediocre) and your house comes tumbling down. And, I would say the first modern CBM female character was Elektra (2008). Which should be telling to all that those accolades you talk about won't matter if the film sucks. That is why I would much rather have Marvel take their time and do it right rather than worry about some fan made contest timey whimey contest on who can do it first. Doing it better means much more.

And, Captain Marvel will be here when the time is right.

And THERE it is. More wholesale preapproval of anything Marvel-centric.
[/quote]

WTF? That isn't pre-approval. I'm just not going to critique Marvel for taking their time and trying to get it right. If they rushed the movie into theaters to bean WW, I'd be skeptical and critical of the entire mess.

"When the time is right" means whenever they finally get the f-ing movie out.

Partially. It also means not getting into some contest with DC (or FOX) and rushing it into production just to get it out sooner. You guys whine about Thor:TDW, which was rushed. It could have been done much better if they had allowed the date to be pushed back a bit to allow a new director to do it right. Even Peter Jackson said the same thing about the Hobbit movies.

It's a mistake to rush things. I spose if you want to see what happens, maybe DC will do it for you.

It's been hinted at, it's been promised, it's been added to the slate, and it's been moved. And they just BARELY cast it. But they've been talking about it for years. Shit, they should've just went for it since Ragnarok got pushed back four years because The Dark World made 70 million less than The Winter Soldier.

If Captain Marvel is going to be the centerpiece of the post-Avengers universe, they need to make sure they get it right: in casting, writing, directing, production, and release date. It's an important deal. If after Infinity War the AVengers take a break, Marvel needs SOMETHING to carry them forward. IMO, Captain Marvel is set up to be central to doing that.

If they rushed it out and made a mediocre movie out of if, you'd complain about that, too. CA getting movie right is much more important than beating some weird timeline that you are inventing in your head that you want Marvel to follow.

No, I'd do something you're incapable of: move on.

Really? You still haven't moved on from BvS sucking, or complaining about Thor:TDW, or IM2, or IM3.

If seems to me that Marvel's philosophy is to let DC have whatever firsts...and Marvel sticks to their timeline and makes the better movie. At least that is what happened with BvS and CA;CW.

Not if you compare it to the Ultimate Edition. Civil War is loaded with plot contrivances. Vision is left out of the opening of the film to force the Accords. Black Widow is out of character just so she can be the one to stop Black Panther. Falcon is given Spider Sense so he can dodge Vision's energy blast, which hits War Machine. Iron Man can't catch War Machine even though he performs an aerial ballet in Iron Man 3 and rescues an entire group of people in freefall. Zemo, an ordinary soldier, dupes the whole of the Avengers like he's a poor man's Ernst Blofeld. Bucky poses sans mask for some security footage so there's absolutely no way Tony can miss him being the guy who killed his parents. Howard Stark is transporting super soldier serum in the trunk of the car without a government escort, so it's extra-easy for the Winter Soldier to perform his assignment. Then we learn The Winter Soldier is just "a" winter soldier, which was a really bad move.

And, Wonder Woman is blasted by gunfire and escapes without a scratch even though it is obvious her shield only covers half her body, at best, and she lifts it while still be fired upon. But, of course THAT is acceptable...and you would rather just nit-pick all this other garbage that nobody but comic book nerds really care about. That is hypcorisy...thank you for finally bringing this things up again.

I remember back in the early 90's when ST:TNG was so popular. In one episode, maybe the series finale, they show a 'future' Capt Riker order "Warp 12". That caused a huge firestorm of debate because it is written in the Star Trek technical manual how warp speed is calculated. Basically, warp 10 is the absolute fastest warp speed that can ever possibly go and everything is derived from that. So, the episode was "wrong". And, everybody argued and argued and argued.

The point is, you either allows these nit-picky bullshit things bother you so it affects how you enjoy the story, or you accept it as "story" (ie: fiction, you know - not real things) and enjoy the show. You keeping track of a list of things like this proves to me that you have no intention of enjoying the story, because you are too busy looking for reasons to not like it.

*They did it before in the '80s with Supergirl.

And, BTW, Red Sonja was also a CBM and it came out at around that same time....which shared the same "universe" as Arny's "Conan".

Nope! Ahnuld didn't play Conan in Red Sonja. He played a throwaway called Kalidor, a role originally intended be a glorified cameo. They were legally unable to use the name "Conan"! Ahnuld's name was only there to sell tickets. He got sucked into weeks of filming. They also tried to use "Stormbringer" till they got a call from Michael Moorcock's lawyers.

Don't assume all of Robert E. Howard's characters were connected and/or existed in essentially the same (Hyborean) age, which is incorrect. Conan of Cimmeria and Red Sonya (with a y, not a j) were never contemporaries, nor were they even geographically connected. Red Sonja was appropriated by Roy Thomas for the Marvel comic. But the movie was not based on the comic, which was in its third and last ongoing incarnation under Marvel, and months away from cancellation.

Also, Supergirl came out in 1984, while Red Sonja came out in 1985.

Marc McClure plays Jimmy Olsen in all four Superman films from 1978-87, and in Supergirl. There's also this, which I've posted before:

Christopher Reeve bowed out just before filming began. He was slated to make a cameo as Superman, but was unavailable; the film still features a picture of Reeves in costume in a brief cameo.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088206/trivia?ref_=tt_ql_trv_1

THAT, Bucko, is called a SHARED UNIVERSE.

I wasn't saying Superman/girl wasn't a shared universe. It doesn't really matter because it failed to go anywhere.

[YoungJRNYfan]

XMEN:A has more heroes than Civil War and BvS combined and it tanked.

Puke it out your blowhole. Say what you want about BvS (we all know you love it) but it didn't tank. It may have under performed at the BO, all things considered, but it didn't come close to tanking and it's already successfully performing in other ways to make up for the BO flak. The huge amount of people still debating the film and non-stop talk about it, especially the Ultimate Edition, prove the movie made some type of impact one way or another. I know it bothers you that critically ripped apart DC movies are rivaling those of the untouchable; can-do-no-wrong Marvel films, but it is and it's only just beginning. SSquad is going to do great business and pit the DCEU on a track that's still being built, but heading in the right direction.

The number of heroes doesn't matter.

Yes it does. The more hero's involved, the higher the stakes. But, we all know there are absolutely NO stakes in Marvel films when it comes to their hero's, so it doesn't surprise me you'd make such a statement. DC on the other hand, people are going to go into their films not knowing what to expect. In the longterm, that's what is going to play in the DCEU's favor. It's already taking shape. Hearing great things from SSquad and it wasn't what people was expecting.

You are making any excuse you can to make Civil War not a "Captain America" film.

That's because it isn't. Civil War is a Avengers movie first; Iron Man movie second; a set up to Spider-Man and Black Panther third and coming in last? A Captain America movie. It's just what it is.

it's a good film

That spins its tires until the next installment

one of the best

You can't make blank statements like that when this is simply your opinion, remember? That said (IMO ) it isn't one of the best. Not even close. Even the most hardcore of Marvel fans will tell you that. It's not even in the first Iron Man or Winter Soldier's league. Just a fast pace clutter of seizure-action setting up their next phase. It plays off as such, too, because we all know CW was a knee jerk response to BvS. In other words, a filler.

and THAT is why so many people saw it.

Then what's the excuse for IM2, IM3 and films like AoU that were flat out awful? A lot of people saw those films, too. Doesn't mean they were good movies. Branding at its finest. Marvel won over the popcorn crowd. Slap a Marvel logo on a turd, cover it in butter and people will eat it up.

Oh, so now that critics favor the DVD release the critics really DO matter.

It proves the EXACT opposite there, Chief. If the critics can FLAT out do an entire 180 and figure-8 around BvS's Ultimate Edition (the same movie; just longer) then they're more useless than villains in Marvel movies.

You two spent months saying they don't matter.

They don't, because it's a cat and mouse game. Critics want to be pampered. Their fawning over the BvS Ultimate Edition after spending months upon months of bashing the same film proves their handle on the industry. It's movie politics and they got what they wanted; invited to the Justice League set. Now? All of a sudden Zack Snyder is a genius again. GO FIGURE. Just like anything else, the more the fans are exposed to things like movie critics, the more hot-air the topic becomes. That's why more people are saying "Screw the critics! I just watched BvS the other day for the first time and I enjoyed it!" It's happening more and more everyday.

Well, that's because BvS sucks

.

Trump/Monker 2016.

And, I would say the first modern CBM female character was Elektra (2008).

This makes sense coming from you. Especially since how you think CBM's didn't count until the year 2008

Which should be telling to all that those accolades you talk about won't matter if the film sucks.

Film is subjective. Shooting blank statements about a film sucking is just your opinion man.

That is why I would much rather have Marvel take their time and do it right

They are not taking their time, especially speeding up the pacing of their films to include new characters into their Universe like Spider-Man. But it only counts when Marvel is doing it. This is coming from the same guy who said DC sucks for not hurrying up and cramming Green Lantern into Justice League and to the DCEU for not doing it the "Marvel" way, but that ended up being a hypocritical statement from the get-go. DC is taking their time to get GL right, but when Marvel does such a thing, it's brilliant. Trump/Monker 2016.

rather than worry about some fan made contest timey whimey contest on who can do it first.

Are you listening to yourself? You're the one standing at the podium. But, of course, like a true politician, you love the sound of your voice so much that you don't even notice it.

Doing it better means much more.

Enter the DCEU.

I'm just not going to critique Marvel for taking their time and trying to get it right.

Critiquing isn't in your Marvel dictionary. As I said above, you shat all over the use of how DC is handling GL when it's clear they are taking their time with the character, but that wasn't the subject at hand at that moment. Spin, spin, spin.

If they rushed the movie into theaters to bean WW, I'd be skeptical and critical of the entire mess.

No you wouldn't.

Partially. It also means not getting into some contest with DC (or FOX) and rushing it

Too late. It's already a CLEAR understanding that Feige has his Spidey-sense's in tune with everything DC is doing at the moment. If not, Civil War would have been a true sequel to Winter Soldier. It doesn't matter now that Marvel is 13 movies into their Universe, they are in direct competition with DC and/or Fox. Just pay attention to the pissing contests of certain announcement they so cleverly pick and choose to announce. It's all calculated. AoU and CW are prime examples of a rush job to get to their next phase.

You guys whine about Thor:TDW

I don't whine about it. Whining is defending something you're clearly butt-hurt over (like how it bothers you that it took DC only 2 movies to directly compete with Marvel's 13, as I predicted.) I don't say much about Thor:TDW. Only how it made me want to cut my retina's out with a box cutter.

If after Infinity War the AVengers take a break, Marvel needs SOMETHING to carry them forward. IMO, Captain Marvel is set up to be central to doing that.

I would argue that it's Doctor Strange. They already said as such. We all know they won't center the MCU around Captain Marvel. They are scared shitless to even have a female led Marvel film, let alone a female being the centerpiece of their next phased Universe. If they decide that Captain Marvel is going to be that piece, it won't come until after Wonder Woman's performance. They are watching Wonder Woman with a close eye.

Really? You still haven't moved on from BvS sucking

Apparently, neither have you. In fact, the words "Batman V Superman" is the only thing that can make you come out to play. I can't even hear the crickets in the Marvel thread.

complaining about Thor:TDW, or IM2, or IM3.

Referencing isn't complaining.

And, Wonder Woman is blasted by gunfire and escapes without a scratch even though it is obvious her shield only covers half her body, at best, and she lifts it while still be fired upon.

This either proves that A.) You can't even read; B.) You have no clue how these characters work or C.) You can't handle prior ass-kickings; thus choosing to ignore them.

or just nit-pick all this other garbage that nobody but comic book nerds really care about.

You literally just narrated a COMIC BOOK MOVIE trailer word for word a few posts up and now all of a sudden it's nerd-garbage? What the HELL are you even doing in here? Realize you're only making fun of yourself. Stick to politics.

[verslibre]

Scripted by Ayer, "Suicide Squad" rejects standard superhero story structure in favor of cutting to the chase -- or in this case the sprawling finale. Ayer gives us 20 minutes of setup followed by 110 minutes of climax, filled with action, sass and the occasional break for heart-to-heart character reveals. It's a structure that would make most screenwriters weep, but by treating "Suicide Squad" less like a story and more like a sandbox where he can play with some of DC's more eccentric anti-heroes, Ayer delivers a deranged and deadly entertaining blockbuster that is just the shake-up this dud-studded summer needs.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/article/review-suicide-squad-is-exactly-what-dcs-film-franchise-needs

[verslibre]

https://twitter.com/ThatKevinSmith/status/760368360639045632

You magnificent bastard! @SuicideSquadWB is a beautiful, visionary, fun-ass film! You did @DCComics proud, sir!

[verslibre]

http://sowizardpodcast.com/2016/08/movie-review-suicide-squad/

Another comic book movie from DC! Some may disagree with me, but I don’t think the DC track record has proven itself to be quite so entertaining with the last few entries.

No offense to David Goyer or Zack Snyder, but “Suicide Squad” is what happens when a filmmaker actually “likes” the characters he’s trying to bring to the big screen. David Ayers must’ve really researched this material, because he seems to really get what people want to see in these adaptations.

The story: We get an absolutely fantastic introduction to these characters that instantly let’s you know that we are not in Snyder’s dreary Smallville Kansas anymore. We learn who the bad (and the good ) guys are, and why they may need each other going forward. Everyone has a part to play, although I’m not exactly sure about the purpose of a few characters. They are sent out on a suicide mission impossible and try to navigate through the unstable terrain as more unforseen variables get tossed at them. They are put to a pretty daunting test. So how you feel about the right and wrong of it all depends on how you feel about the characters. There’s a lot of grey areas here.

The characters: Holy Smokes! A few characters I wish had a little bit more development here, but the spotlight ones are a cinematic joyride! Will Smith is clearly having fun playing Deadshot. Of course he’s going to get the best lines of the film because his delivery is so perfect, he might as well have just made them up. He doesn’t disappear into the role, more like sculpt the character to resemble his personality, and it completely works. Margot Robbie IS Harley Quinn. she somehow manages to incorporate ALL the different styles of the character, from the early cartoons, to the video games, to the comics and creates a strong, blended version. David Ayers made sure to give Harley fans what they want. Jared Leto as the Joker, it’s a small role, but his appearances definitely does change the electricity in the room. This feels like more of a “comic book” version of the character, but a nice departure from the “realistic” approach that Heath Ledger created. The surprise characters for me was Viola Davis as Amanda Waller and Jay Hernandez as Diablo. They both brought some depth to these roles that I wasn’t expecting.

It’s not a perfect movie. There’s a little bit of some pacing issues as the “Squad” is heading out to their mission. Also, as with most comic book movies, the villains here could have been a little stronger, character wise. That is a minor quibble, because everything else is so on point, when they get to the good stuff, you are along for the ride.

This is a thrilling, funny, explosive, action, summer popcorn comic book movie. I can’t believe this is only two films away from “Man Of Steel” and it’s starting to feel like the “correct” universe we should be having these adventures in. Thank You David Ayers!!

Also, there’s a mid credit scene, so stay put at first, and there’s absolutlely nothing at the very end.

Grade: 4 out of 5

[verslibre]

Review: 'Suicide Squad' Lets Bad Guys Shine For Wickedly Good Fun

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2016/08/02/review-suicide-squad-lets-bad-guys-shine-for-wickedly-good-fun/#585e9489b44d

[verslibre]

XMEN:A has more heroes than Civil War and BvS combined and it tanked. The number of heroes doesn't matter.

In the case of Civil War, it did, and does, but my point (no surprise it went over your head) was that two Batman films performed to those numbers with only Batman.

You are making any excuse you can to make Civil War not a "Captain America" film. Here's a secret what your opinion is on that - it's a good film, one of the best, and THAT is why so many people saw it.

Everyone knows and admits it's Avengers 2.5 except you, and all went and saw it (myself included) for that reason, among others.

Stop procrastinating and watch the Ultimate Edition, then. A whole bunch of armchair critics reversed their stance after doing so. It's the preferred version of BvS. Can you say "vindicated"? The only d-bag who won't watch it is Faraci, but he's a d-bag.

Oh, so now that critics favor the DVD release the critics really DO matter. You two spent months saying they don't matter. One of you even over analyzed it to the point where your favorite movies and looked up how critics rated them in some attempt to prove, I really don't know, that you favor movies critics hate? Make up your mind.

Again, you miss the point, which is that a number of "critics" who initially dissed the movie flipped. No surprise you choose to ignore that. Next item.

You're like a warped record. All you add is "If so & so DC film sucks," blah, blah, blah. You add very little to the actual discussion.

Well, that's because BvS sucks.

"BvS sucks" is the reason you add very little to the discussion apart from nonsensical regurgitations? That makes no sense.

Look, you are making all of these huge conclusions. But, one small obstacle (WW being more like a Thor movie than you want it to be, and very mediocre) and your house comes tumbling down. And, I would say the first modern CBM female character was Elektra (2008).

The only thing I'm doing is shooting down every projectile fired from your pea shooter with an M16.

And you're wrong again. It's Catwoman (2004).

Which should be telling to all that those accolades you talk about won't matter if the film sucks. That is why I would much rather have Marvel take their time and do it right rather than worry about some fan made contest timey whimey contest on who can do it first. Doing it better means much more.

You still don't get it. Marvel wasn't waiting to start on Captain Marvel to "get it right." They weren't doing ANYTHING with it. It was just a tile on a slate.

WTF? That isn't pre-approval. I'm just not going to critique Marvel for taking their time and trying to get it right. If they rushed the movie into theaters to bean WW, I'd be skeptical and critical of the entire mess.

See my previous comment.

It's a mistake to rush things. I spose if you want to see what happens, maybe DC will do it for you.

"Spose"? It's a case of "We've seen what happens," and there are a couple Marvel movies that fit the bill. And there's also a case of "Why'd it take so long?" and that movie's just okay. You figure out which ones, smart guy.

If Captain Marvel is going to be the centerpiece of the post-Avengers universe, they need to make sure they get it right: in casting, writing, directing, production, and release date. It's an important deal. If after Infinity War the AVengers take a break, Marvel needs SOMETHING to carry them forward. IMO, Captain Marvel is set up to be central to doing that.

Nowhere has it even been suggested the MCU would settle into orbit around one of their heroines. Nowhere. If they want something to carry them forward, it'll no doubt be an Iron Man 4 or New Avengers or GOTG 3: The Guardians Must Be Crazy.

And, Wonder Woman is blasted by gunfire and escapes without a scratch even though it is obvious her shield only covers half her body, at best, and she lifts it while still be fired upon. But, of course THAT is acceptable...and you would rather just nit-pick all this other garbage that nobody but comic book nerds really care about. That is hypcorisy...thank you for finally bringing this things up again.

Yet here you are, arguing the same hollow points ad nauseum, and then you have the gall to use the term "comic book nerds." THAT's hypocrisy (notice I spell it correctly and you don't, 2-3x in a row).

Watch the fkn Wonder Woman movie before you think you've got it all figured out. And go make your own thread for Star Trek.

I wasn't saying Superman/girl wasn't a shared universe. It doesn't really matter because it failed to go anywhere.

A little late, buddy. You assumed Conan the Barbarian/Destroyer and Red Sonja comprised a shared universe. That's like saying Space: 1999 was a spinoff of Trek, haha,

[RedWingFan]

Suicide Squad opened at 33% on RT. At least it's ahead of B v. S 27%

[YoungJRNYfan]

Nice edit to throw the dig! "Critics panning a DCEU movie. In other news: water...wet." Means I'll like it, good.

[verslibre]

Here's a novel idea! I think I'll go watch it, anyway!

Not long ago, Ayer took to Twitter to post a very famous quote by Emiliano Zapta. He wrote, “Prefiero morir de pie que vivir de rodillas.” And, for those of you who aren't familiar with Spanish, the quote roughly translates to. “I’d prefer to die on my feet than to live on my knees.”

Obviously, it looks like Ayer is standing behind Suicide Squad, for sure.

Ayer later followed up with a second tweet which read, “[the] Zapata quote is my way of saying I love the movie and believe in it. Made it for the fans. Best experience of my life.”

http://comicbook.com/2016/08/02/suicide-squad-director-responds-to-negative-reviews-from-critics/

[verslibre]

Two thumbs up from Jeremy Jahns: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKaLy54AbWs

[YoungJRNYfan]

The Rotten Tomato shindig has turned into a total shit-show the past few years and has takin' on a life of its own. It's one of those eye-rolling experiences fanboys get totally caught up in and act like it has a backbone on the rules of subjectivity of the movies themselves where somehow, the site plays a holier than though role over our own. It's quite ridiculous. For me, though, in a nutshell, there's maybe only 2-4 critics TOPS I always seek out and Mark Hughes of FORBES and Jeremy Jahns were two of them, so it's great to see them love the film. For me, that's about as far as I'll go when trusting certain critics. Curious to see what Shnepp and Campea think. Kevin Smith already gargled Ayer's balls over it lol.

[verslibre]

Kevin Smith already gargled Ayer's balls over it lol.