DC Movie slate revealed

- "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice," directed by Zack Snyder (2016)

- "Suicide Squad," directed by David Ayer (2016)

- "Wonder Woman," starring Gal Gadot (2017)

- "Justice League Part One," directed by Zack Snyder, with Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill and Amy Adams reprising their roles (2017)

- "The Flash," starring Ezra Miller (2018) - "Aquaman," starring Jason Momoa (2018)

- "Shazam" (2019)

- "Justice League Part Two," directed by Zack Snyder (2019)

- "Cyborg," starring Ray Fisher (2020)

- "Green Lantern" (2020)

so what do you think?

Cyborg gets his own movie?

Another (more or less) decade of predominantly superhero movies? I like superhero movies, but this shit is way overboard.

@crimsonbrute said:

Dammit, I'm going to have to watch Darkman again now.

**** yea, give take the pink elephant.

I don't really understand this complaint. More superhero films? Yeah, compared to what, other blockbusters? There have, and will always be, big Hollywood films each year. Recently, those have been focused on comic book adaptations. They might not be "original", but they are stories that make good blockbusters. But if Hollywood stopped adapting them, they'd just find other sources to make blockbusters, and they'd be just as unoriginal.

Plus, it isn't like these are the ONLY films that come out. There are still PLENTY of films each year that aren't comic adaptations, or are smaller films. If anything, there are MORE original and great small indie (and some Hollywood) films in recent years than ever before. There are also plenty of other relatively big non-superhero blockbuster/actions films as well. I mean, I have personally seen 38 films so far this year (by years end that number could be 60-70), yet only 3 were superhero films, so it isn't like the industry is over saturated with them.

As long as the quality is as "high" as they have been, and as long as they are fun to watch, I don't see any problem with studios continuing to produce them.

Ugh. Zack Snyder. His movies are horrible.

I liked The Watchman, didn't really get the hate behind it. Man Of Steel had a few good moments as well, overall it was shite but the battle sequences pretty exciting. That hot alien lady really did it for me. She bad, but can she be tamed?

well hello there future list of bad movies.

@uninspiredcup said:

Another (more or less) decade of predominantly superhero movies? I like superhero movies, but this shit is way overboard.

Got to agree with this, I'm fed up with Superhero Movies. Did you know we have had two Spider Man 2 films in the last decade ?

That's all but inevitable as the first was designed as a trilogy, and Sony has to keep making Spiderman movies to keep the rights to them.

We shall see how these movies turn out. Might just stick with Marvel.

I know, but still thats mega milkage.

OH man, that is crazy, and 5 'Spider Man' films total...out of literally thousands and thousands of other films released in the same time.

I'm ready to be entertained and joyed

Yeah there like a cancer

Amazing Spider Man exists not because someone wanted to tell a story, or create a unique twist on the franchise, its because

Sony need to keep the Spider Man films going to keep the rights to it, and the easiest way to do it was to get cheaper actors and

an obedient director and throw any old shit together.

And? Most films are made to make money. Even arthouse/indie films hope to make enough to finance other films. Just because studios are doing it with comic book adaptations doesn't change that. There have been about 50 major comic book adaptations in the last 14 years. In that same time, there have been a total of about 8400 films released worldwide. So these superhero films make up about 00.05% of all films...The problem isn't that there have been too many superhero films in the last decade, the problem is people don't bother to go out and watch the thousands of other non-superhero related films that have come out.

Vote with your wallet

Expand your movie awareness

Something

Something

00.05% is too much then, it sure does feel like a lot more. Most of the films I watch are at the Cinema, I'll often go once or twice a week with friends or other half. It seems like were either watching a Superhero Film or watching trailers for upcoming Superhero Films.

I am really looking forward to DC finally exploring their universe

We need a like/dislike button

I like. They probably will suck, but lets take a chance.

Funny, I was gonna post: LOL Zack Snyder. DC is fvcked. I'm willing to bet all these movies are going to suck when your best Director to your biggest blockbuster hit is Zack Snyder.

I don't understand why the hell DC or WB won't just pay Ben Affleck double to act and direct Justice League. I mean his credentials are pretty good: the Town, Argo, Gone baby Gone. That's way more than Zack Snyder will ever be.

He's not part of the main universe, i don't think we will see him anytime soon

You think like this and you might be right. But how about "Cyborg movie with him leading Teen Titans"? Suddenly it changes from "why?" to "awesome!".

Anyway, I;m a little surprised at myself, but from all those flicks the one that I'm hyped about the most is actually Suicide Squad, especially with the director they took. If he will go for his usuall gritty brutal style this movie could end up the best upcoming superhero flick, not just the best DC one

In all fairness, I doubt that Ben Affleck directing would make a whole lot of difference. After all, if WB is trying to emulate the success of the MCU movies, then I was under the impression that those were sort of art-by-committee. That's not to say that there's no creative input from the director, but the final output is largely limited by the studio.

I mean, look at the Marvel Movies. What are the most well-received movies there? Iron Man, Captain America 2, The Avengers, and Guardians of the Galaxy. And not a single one of those movies was directed by someone with a solid track record for directing big budget movies. The thing is, these movies all have to fit in an overall grand plan. Iron Man has to work within the cinematic universe years after the Iron Man director has stopped working for the studio. That kind of integration and consistency requires removing a fair amount of artistic control. This is the same reason why a pastry chef at Publix doesn't get to tamper with the recipes. Because then you'd have inconsistency within the franchise. They're not hiring you for your artistic vision, they're hiring you to be a competent craftsman who is able to express THEIR vision.

And while I think Zack Snyder movies tend to suck, I think he's a competent craftsman. In all honesty, if the movie ends up sucking, I think that probably won't be mostly due to the fact that Zack Snyder was directing. More likely, it'll probably be more due to the studio just having a poorly planned out strategy for these movies or a poor understanding of the characters. You could swap out Zack Snyder for Ben Affleck and the result would probably be mostly the same, because in these kinds of movies a LOT of what ends up on screen is out of the director's hands. This is part of why Marvel isn't getting directors with serious Oscar cred either. You don't need a Stephen Spielberg, you need something more like Brett Ratner.

Zack Snyders sticks pretty close to the material. Christopher Nolan very much the M. Night Shyamalan of superhero movies.

The thing is - WB wants the success, but they're going at it different route. THey seeem to be attracting a lot higher calibre talent than Marvel does, which propably has a lot more to do with providing creative freedom for actors and directors than with paying them well. DC enjoyed tremendous success with Nolan, not just commercial, but also critical one (those still are the only flicks in the genre that successfully became more than nice popcorn fun and I doubt WB is willing to completely drop that yet.

Even Man of Steel, for all it's faults (most of which were script based) felt somehow unique and more inspirational than typical superhero movie.

Of course, this might end up being risky, because by not excercising iron grip control WB might walk into a flop, but at the same time it might end up with something much grander either. Plus the last time WB tried to meddle heavily into a movie was Green Lantern and we all know how it ended. Had they let the original team do what they wanted (which is a movie almost completely set in space) GL could have ended up a big success and the whole shared universe could already be up and running already instead of only gettting set up.

@AdrianWerner: i agree, they're also not going the same route as Marvel. In my opinion Marvel has more limited villains and settings to explore while DC has a lot more to do with its lore.

So no more Nolan Batman films? Just vs Superman?

Shazam is probably the only one I will see in theaters. Maybe Cyborg. I refuse to see anything where Batman isn't played by Christian Bale.

DC is asking for flops with Wonder Women, Aquaman, The Flash, Shazam, Cyborg, and Green Lantern (again). Do they really think they can keep this going until 2020 with their half-assed attempts at movie making? Sure Batman is always a blockbuster, but these movies will probably be garbage-tier.

The other movies sound interesting though.

Man Of Steel = Batman Begins done fairly poorly.

Uses the formula of flashbacks, the monotone, un-emotive characters (typical of Nolan style), the macguffin bomb (i.e. world engine). Is he here to help or hinder?

About the only interesting thing I liked (which wasn't really unique) was Jor-El being both dead and alive and guiding Lous Lane through the ship and the idea that because the other aliens are newer, they cannot use the air or fly properly. They have to do weird jumpy shit.

I don't really understand what is inspirational about it.

When I watch something like Rocky or District 9, that's interesting. The characters are flawed. In District 9, the hero actually becomes the hero. He looks like a standard 40 year old person and actually acts like a fucking moron at the start of the movie who doesn't see the "prawns" as people. Throughout the movie the character obviously evolves and basically sacrifices himself to save them. In Rocky, it's potential pissed away, being given a shot in what everyone see's as a joke match.

In Man Of Steel, right from the get go, you get this perfectly square jawed god like person, rescuing people from the get go, as a child. Right up to adulthood. What exactly am I suppose to invest in?

Like Batman Begins it seems to be about "finding yourself". In Batman Begins Bruce Wayne almost shoots someone and at one point seems to agree with Carmine Falcone. He's rich, he has power and is well trained but has no ideals fully developed. When you get the difference between The league Of Shadows ideals and his own, that's also interesting and the main conflict of the movie.

In "Man Of Steel", you are powerful, hide it?

It seems as well, the reason the aliens specifically come to earth and kill 1/3 of the population is specifically due to him. So all the talk about humans will reject you doesn't really mean much when you lure super aliens to level entire cities.

Regarding the script. What was the point of the magic prison thing? The planet will be blown up in 10 minutes, so we will lock you up for X years. I sure hope you don't try to take that much promised revenge? Whaaa.

The DC animated movies (and animated tv series) still way better imo.

Ugh Zack Snyder directing Justice League makes me lose hope for those movies (and Batman v Superman looks like crap). Hopefully the rest will be good.

*Watches the leaked Avengers: Age of Ultron trailer*....who gives a shit about all this DC stuff!

Superman is or can be, by his father words. At some points it really felt like it was a God we're watching instead of superheroes.

Now, unfortunatelly they didn't fully realize it and in the end it felt flat. Which was a shame. Superman movie should be serious, but not dark. It should be inspirational through and through, not for few scenes of grandure.

Anyone who likes superheroes or fun movies?

And that Avengers 2 trailer looked awfully grim dark. I at least hope Whedon learned how to direct, because Avengers was terrible in this regard and after how good Cap 2 and GoTG ended I expect more than I got with first Avengers

I still don't get it. If he's a flawless god, who is inherently born with these amazing powers and saves people practically from inception, then, he hasn't really earned or developed anything.

What qualifies him to lead and inspire people? Threat of force? The ending of the movie with him crashing down a satellite and laying an ultimatum seems to suggest this. Not exactly what I would call inspirational.

Well...hence a God instead of a hero. Superman is also great because he's doing what he's doing purely from goodness of his heart. He didn't have to go through some sort of trauma or be forced into it, like Batman or Spiderman.

I always viewed Superman's origin stories as nothing more than SF tales about first contact, because in reality that's what it is and it makes people optimistic, because the first contant with alien being they get is one that's good and genuinelly cares about them, which contrasts with how cold and dark the whole universe is.

And, see, this is why I never understood geek culture's hard-on for Batman. Everyone says that Superman is the boring dude with no flaws, but aren't these largely the same character type? They're both orphans who were granted incredible gifts from the moment they were born. Superman was gifted with godlike powers, Batman was gifted with so much fucking money that he might as well be a god. So, they were both given incredible power that they didn't earn. They then both suffer terrible tragedy when their parents are killed. They both then come under the wing of a kind weakling who gives them their morals (Alfred, the Kents). They both institute a no-killing rule (usually), and they both dedicate their lives to using their godlike power for good instead of evil.

But I mean...shit, Batman was rich as holy ****. It's not even as if his goodness just came from hard work or dedication, because he never would have had the luxury of studying how to be a superhero if his rich-ass parents hadn't died and left him all their money. Most people can't afford to take years off finding their paths, then training under the League of Shadows, then coming back to civilization to be the god of Gotham City. For anyone but Batman, you do that shit and in the best case scenario you end up a Kung-Fu hobo. No Batmobile for you, no carbon nanotech armor, no fancy-ass education that allows you to hold the title of "world's greatest detective." No, for anyone but Batman, you end up a bum. Sure, a tough-ass well-trained bum who can kick your ass in a street fight, but that's still just a bum. Make no mistake...Batman's biggest power was being born rich as shit, which is pretty comparable to Superman's power of being a god. They're both only ABLE to go around fighting crime and doing superhero crap because their parents handed them down the luxury of actually being able to goof off with that shit. They don't have to worry about paying the bills because they were both born into absolute power.

Not that I'm saying that's a bad thing, I just think it's sort of uppity. It's like George W. Bush going to the ghetto and telling some poor kid "if you try hard, you can be like me." That's not to diminish George W. Bush's accomplishments, but that advice would be kind of insulting. I don't want to say that he didn't work hard for what he got, but he also won the lottery when he was born and that contributed a shitload towards his success. If our superheroes are our models for how to behave, then that model sort of loses significance when it only applies to the 1%. Most people aren't born rich or powerful or smart. They're born dumb and weak and poor. Going up to them and acting as a model for how to live is like being born with a silver spoon in your ass and then walking up to a random hobo and telling him to try to find a job.

But yeah...I'm not disagreeing with your take on Superman. I'm just saying...I hear people say this shit about Superman all the time, and then in the next few seconds they'll contrast that by talking about how awesome Batman is. But how the hell is Batman different?

No. Bruce Wayne has motivation beyond inherent "because he's good". His parents are murdered as a result of the state of the city. In Nolan's movies He also almost becomes a criminal himself by bordering on shooting someone and is trained up unwittingly by terrorists. He also sympathise's with Falkone at one point, before trying to stand up to him. He's rich, but practically suicidal. And the character develops a fair bit.

Depending on the take as well e.g. Mask Of Phantasm he actually has to give up i.e. sacrifice things to strive towards what may be misguided. You get the paradox of the interesting villain (Phantasm) showing the path Bruce could have went down.

He also has a rogue gallery that enhanced the story by generally being more interesting than he is, enhancing the story and themes.

In the comics as well the character in Batman Year 1 is fairly poor at what he does, you see him develop. In Man Of Steel, you get a 20 second scene in which he starts jumping.

It's weird, but the ones I'm most excited about on that list are Aquaman and Suicide Squad. The others I imagine will all be fairly standard comic book movie fare (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) but these two are the wild cards for me. Aquaman has always been represented as a lame hero, but could be awesome if done right (plus I like Mamoa) and Suicide Squad is actually a fairly unique concept, at least for this genre. Also looking forward to all the ensemble films (JL 1 and 2, BvS). Not terribly interested in Wonder women, Flash, Green Lantern, or Cyborg (seriously, how did he get his own movie?) though.