Lh19:


Have you seen her in the 'Marvelous Mrs Maisel'?

Nah.

Kaycee7:
Team No Trunks. I think the trunks style has aged out, at least for serious adaptations. Can still be used for animated adaptations or campy movies/series

My point exactly. There has to be a reason he would wear pants outside his trousers lol.

itsADE:

are you team trunks or team no trunks, i found this picture online and I think its a good mock up version of the suit

Trunks in the modern day? Eesh... don't know how to feel about that one, bro.

Kaycee7:
Even the video of the Lois, Clark and Lex actors with the iconic Superman theme playing in the background. Nicolas Hoult has already shaved his head. David Corenswet is looking buff. The ministry is moving to the permanent site.

I am more excited for Nicolas Hoult. Not sure of Rachel Brosnahan. I get this innocent feel on her which isn't something I don't picture of a Lois Lane. I don't want another damsel in distress Lois Lane. More of the Erica Durance and Bitsie Tulloch Lois Lane will be appreciated.

SMUAG:


Not impress with it...

Same. I love the colors but the smooth feel of the crest is lost. I get this Batman sort of edginess to the symbol.

SMUAG:


The biggest mistake is trying to throw tv/series into a conversation where they aren't suppose to be... A series can't be compared to movies because tv/series can get away with so many things that movies can't. Let them try The boys as just a standalone movie and watch how it goes... Their are so many flaws in tv/series that audience can easily let go because their are still much room and time to make up for those flaws and series are meant to work with mini budgets, lesser vfx etc...so when a series breaks such boundaries then people tend to invest more of their time on it because what they are actually seeing now looks different. Whereas movies are expected to be so.

True but bro, a lot of films have managed to flesh out characters while driving the plot. In the DCEU we really didn't get invested in the characters.
So character focus isn't just for TV shows. I get that tv shows have a soft landing compared to films but the DCEU had a lot of flaws.

I still don't understand what you mean by Henry was lame (as Superman) in MoS.. I guess you judging from the angle of Christopher Reeve's Superman, because from what I have come to know their are 100s of version or alteration of Superman out there and I don't think many of us have read up to 20 different versions for us to completely say he was lame in MoS... I think somebody answered this same question on MoS being lame/bad perfectly on Quora site and even gave the actual version that Henry Cavill's Superman was actually portraying. Maybe if I get hold of that excerpt (again) I will paste it here...
Yes, their are/were flaws in both movies, but the bulk of the blames should go to WB for trying to be faster than their shadows in everything...
Even the best story tellers and writers will suffer almost the same fate as Snyder if their works are being heavily meddled with...

Yea, true. I agree but a charismatic actor would have done better in MOS. I love Cavill as Supes and admit the writing wasn't that impressive but Cavill couldn't get us to connect with Clark or Superman. He was great in JL as he got more comfortable in the role.

nani667:
°°°

Omo, this is gangster. She for no talk. Then again, that's social media for you.

SMUAG:


Though time will tell, even if I don't like his take on cbm characters...
It's so painful how they used their "cbm must be lighthearted, fun and in all have hearts" killed and destroyed the whole genre.
They don't even give room for other takes/styles to work in the cbm world - once your style did not flow with the mainstream audiences (which mainly consist of mcu fanboys) then that movie is dead already...

The problem with the DCEU then was that it was too plot driven. It wasn't the dark tone or light tone. That was the misconception. It didn't have character moments that weren't reliant on just moving the plot but getting audiences to actually care about the characters. I didn't feel the love between Lois and Clark, we didn't even get to know Clark or Lex or Batman. Why Wonder Woman was liked was cause it had these moments. Same with the first Aquaman film.
Look at The Boys for example, that show is dark and people love it. Cause it's character driven. Same with Gen V.
Now, the mistake WB made was trying to make the Franchise like Marvel rather than correct the narrative style.
Now, we have to agree that Zack Snyder's weakness is, he isn't good at fleshing a story that surrounds around characters. He is more of the aesthetic and action director. He is not strong on story. That was what killed BvS and MOS. And to be fair, Henry Cavill was lame in MOS. He got better in BvS. Or maybe it was the direction. His Clark and Superman were just robots. He barely had facial expressions to contribute to his performance.

A lot of problems with the DCEU and WB was the chief architect of it. They should have had better script writers and not had Snyder build the universe. I feel they could have had a writer or two to carve out the plan and work it with directors who will then bring their own styles into the films.

TonySpike:


James Gunn will put a final death kneel to the CBM industry once and for all.

The franchise is already dead bro. Less interested in anything from it again.

SMUAG:


We lost it soon they want everything to be mcu-like and I hope James Gunn must've learnt one or two from it.

Then again, I don't think WB hired the right man to build a Cinematic universe.

SMUAG:


Same here, brother!
Longest time...

Is it coincidence that this our wonderful page is dying a natural d=^th just like the DCEU...? I hope not cause I love this thread...
Minemrys maybe you can help us to retcon the name to the current DC under James Gunn so we continue (from there).
Some of us had always been on the defence for the DCEU and I think is time we be on the offence now

Na my turn to dey nitpick any little mistakes I see o...

Lol. Maybe some of us are tired of superhero films and its enthusiasm. Or perhaps no longer logging in to Nairaland.

For me, it's a bit of the two. Superhero stuff no longer excite me like before. I'm more into comedy, drama and romance flicks now sort of.
And WB didn't help matters.
For the James Gunn universe, give it a few projects before the superhero fatigue catches up to it.

Happy New Year, guys.
Long time, folks. How are we all doing?
@Pu7pl3, @abduleez1, @thekingishere, @Bankygee, @raalsalghul, @thehulk616, @SMAUG, I know I am missing a lot of names, but happy new year, everyone.

SMUAG:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgLNzunkS9U?si=I844V3QPFfh2135O


Hope James Gunn lovers here will not call people names when the coin is turned...
I was waiting for his fans to post this for a while now but they didn't, so I say let me help myself out.
Only him won b writer, director and critic at the same time...no wahala

Lol, I may not like him but I don't hold this against him. And seriously I am not wishing his DCU to fail cause let's face it, WB are the real problem not Gunn. It's okay for him to not like something.

SMUAG:



I suggest he should completely reboots everything, not one of the old guys should be kept. Cause I don't want a situation where if any of his movie fails the blame will now be tied to those old guns by saying people still have that bitter taste of dceu. I don't want that, those Snyder's casts have suffered a lots from similar situations once the movies they're in did not meet up expectations...
He should do 100% reboot. Nothing like keeping any old casts.

I love this angle. I am not happy Gadot agreed to do this. But I am not opposed to her returning if that's what she wants.

BlackManta:


James Gunn should stop talking to them.

He shouldn't make any promises or feed them the idea that they might stick around in DCU.

He should block their numbers until further notice.

Gal wouldn't be saying all this nonsense to the media if James Gunn hadn't talked to her about her future

This is all Gunn's fault.

I don't want that woman anywhere near DCU. Throw her away.

It's as if you don't know she's a Hollywood commodity now. You guys hate her cause of WW84 but forget she was good before then and could have played the role better with a better script.

TheMaterialist:



Believe me when I tell you this,
You don't need Villains to make a good
Super Hero Story.


You Just Need Well Written Antagonists.



The Antagonist May Be Human, It may be non
Human, It may be a Situation or an Environment,
It could be literally anything that is against the
Interests or the Desires of the Protagonist.


World Hunger as Depicted in the Comic serves
as an antagonist, because it opposes
Superman's Desire for World Peace, Superman
Just can't sit down and fold his hands when
there are Millions of children dying of hunger
everyday.



Conflict is the Music of a Story as long as there is
Conflict, the story advances.

When an Protagonist resolves conflict easily
or quickly, it kills off the tension in a story,
Tension is necessary for anyone to enjoy a good
Story.



The Best Way Write Superman is not by giving him a Bigger and Badder Villain, It is to
Give Him Problems He Cannot Punch His Way
Out Of.
Problems that he cannot Solve With His Vast
Array of Powers and Abilities.


And World Hunger is One of Such Problems.


Writers should stop giving Superman Punching
Bags in the Form of Newer Villains.

Superman Returns did that. But lots of people had issues with it. I get your point but listen you can't have a Superman film without having action. There has to be a balance.
Superman fighting world hunger would take Nolan kind of writing to work. And I repeat, you need action in a Superman film. You don't need villains, true but you need a convincing story and spectacle.

TheMaterialist:
Superman Tries to End World Hunger.


This is a story I would like to see being made into
a Superman Movie Someday.

It captures the essence of Superman.



Painting and art by Award winning Artist Alex Ross
Story by Paul Dini.



https://readcomiconline.li/Comic/Superman-Peace-on-Earth/Full?id=47578

It won't work. They tried something like that with a Quest for peace, and it tanked.
It will be boring and what villain symbolizes the theme? What works for comics might not work on TV.

I called it, didn't I?

TheMaterialist:
I was recently watching a Critique of one of my
Favorite Super heroes: The Flash(The TV Series)




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9Xh7_XvnFI&t=2112s&pp=ygUZVGhlIGZsYXNoIGlzIGluY29uc2lzdGVudA%3D%3D



In the video the guy explains how
PIS(plot induced stupidity), throughout the show
Prevents the flash from solving problems properly and using his powers in a very efficient way,
Just so that the writers can create scenes filled
with tension and conflict.



I think this doesn't just apply to the Flash but it also applies to many DC super heroes,



How can you make a show or a Movie about an OverPowered character Interesting?



How can you give very Powerful heroes Meaningful conflict that they can't solve easily,
without having to dumb them down or Nerf them?



The answer to this question may decide whether
The New DC universe becomes successful going
Forward.

Lol, I also saw the videos some days back. I agree with the guy lol. It's pretty simple to write OP superheroes and make them interesting. Ditch the plot structure and make it more of a character piece. Don't write their villains as evil but antagonist that serve as a symbol of what personal demon they're fighting within themselves. Or make their villains more powerful or with more advantage.
Writing Flash is easy. It takes intelligence and applying science fiction to logic. Also make his supporting cast interesting.

abduleez1:


Ehen, I thought I was the only one who thought him a villain initially.

Dunno whether I've seen him as a villain in one of the animation against Superman or it's a figment of my imagination.
Either way, Gunn is planning him for a Superhero. And he's stylishly setting up the team — The Terrifics. He's teased them before.

It was in the JL animated series. He wasn't a villain however but I believe just angry at how he was transformed or something. I have forgotten. But thinking of it, he isn't even connected to Superman.

Ballzproblem2:
happy with metamorpho making love action,fell in love with the character in young justice,his power is freaking cool

I hope they aren't treating the character as a villain cause he is actually a super hero.

TheMaterialist:
Quick Question,

What's the difference between Batman and
Black Panther?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Batman Returns.

One is a capitalist, the other is.a Royal prince or king. One is black, the other is white.

abduleez1:


I dey tell you bro.
Excitement wan kill me.

You dey see the latest cooking with Metamorpho wey j just see now now??
James dey cook abeg.
It means Lex won't be the central figure as usual just as Minemrys want am.

I hope so. I just wish they weren't making this known in July.

Now, I have no problems with Hawkgirl, Mister Terrific and Guy Gardner being in a Superman movie, but seriously, do we really need to know that right now? Again, WB and James Gunn failing at maximizing the critical ingredient of 'hype', mystery.
They could have just announced the actors in unspecified roles and allowed the media to debate about it for months then in March of next year, start releasing snippets of their characters on social media before releasing the trailer.
How is that hard? Now, you will very much have the media and reddit accounts trying to figure out the story, patch things up with the any footage that gets leaked and ruin the fun and surprise for everyone. You will find out that before we get close to the release of the film, we've already figured out what the whole thing is all about.

James Gunn, we really don't need to know things about Superman Legacy this early. Come on. That's what ruined BvS aside the bad cut. We literally knew what was going to happen in the film which wouldn't have happened if Gal Gadot wasn't revealed as playing Wonder Woman or some certain things were kept from the trailer. Leave the hype and spectacle for the cinema. Promote the film as a Superman and Lois film first and foremost. Not build up hype very early then allow audiences to raise their expectations only to have it underwhelming with little surprises left in the film.

BlackManta:


James Gunn should keep his favouritism under control.

I know they are friends but why Nathan?

Wasn't he in The Suicide Squad which is canon to DCU?

I always pictured Matt Damon as Guy Gardner though. But hey, news flash. The reason for recasting Cavill is basically to get cheaper casts. Part of the whole reboot was about money. Getting the likes of Cavill, Affleck, Gadot, Amy Adams etc now costs big bucks especially when the BO isn't forthcoming. Hence to beat cost, they want to maximize profit to make sure a huge chunk of the production budget doesn't go to paying the cast. That's why contracts weren't renewed. And the performance of the other films didn't instill hope of a massive profit. Right now, WBD are reportedly eager to start making profit.

100naira:
you can't blame them,
With what happened to the flash, if left to them they fit release blue beetle and aquaman 2 to Alaba international marketers and call it a day.

Lol. Very funny. At this stage, it's best to let the films sell themselves. I mean, no promotion will guarantee a film's progress in cinemas just as the Flash has proven.

abduleez1:


Alright Mr Investor,
Still doesn't stop the fact that DC films will continue to get made investor or not cos all this we are saying na merry-go-rounds.

It all depends on the films turning profit ASAP. Zaslav is not charitable. If the films keep on losing interest, them go pull the plug. Besides, I don't think you realize there's already a superhero fatigue creeping up. Just think of it in 2 angles not just the angle that after 2 films without profit, Zaslav won't start looking for alternatives. And please, if you want to use derogatory words, use it plainly, which one is Mr. Investor? Abi na cause I dey follow yarn?

abduleez1:


Cos we have different opinions of how things would go for DC. And I just wan end the argument.


Still your understanding of product placement and ROI is kinda flawed. Product placement doesn't always necessarily involves payment of cash.
Also, they don't pay money for product placement/subtle advertising so they can partake in the movies box office.
Their return of investment is in the BRAND EXPOSURE not cash returns. That's why some pay in the first place just to get into the film.
If the film makes money or not no concern the brand's as long as many people watched the film or will watch in the future. So it's a win win for the brands if the movie are good. They are sure to get repeat watch or more viewers in the future = exposure.

WW84 that you might consider a flop at BO is a big win for the product placement brand (Members Only) in the film.

Bros,I don't even know why the back and forth. That I mentioned product placement doesn't mean all the investors in films are advertising products or interested in the BO. There are a lot of investors in films, some minor and some major. Advertisers are also investors but it depends on what the agreement is on.

I don't know why you are centered on advertisers lol. Production companies are also part of investors. Take for example public liability companies where salary earners have shares in them, of course what they get might be little or different to what main shareholders get when the investment turns profit. Film business involves a lot of people in the financial category and in different angles. Not just the studio heads.

abduleez1:


Lol, all this you've said I'm well aware of.
Anyways, you're free to believe what you want.

Then why we come dey argue?

abduleez1:


So how do the studio make its money? Without producing movies because the investors felt it's not receiving ROI??

As a studio they have no choice than to keep producing content cos there's no way of recouping investments without investing first. Except they want to fold up the business and pack up.

So in essence, DC films will still be produced as long as it's a pivotal IP and revenue driver for WB regardless of who's in charge. The worst they can do is change CEO, executives or board members to right the ship.

This is the reason why I say I don't buy this investors refusing to produce DC films cos they ain't getting returns. Which other franchise have the potential to deliver WB blockbuster money presently? Harry Potter is not bankable presently. LOTR is already in retirement and despite reboot plans by Zaslav, it takes time (at least 3-5 yrs from now before you see finished product). Godzilla and Kong franchise is being pulled from WB by Legendary after the next film.

So you see there's really no choice to stop producing DC films as it's currently the only money spinner asides the Conjuring franchise.

Studios don't spend investors money on films that end up making losses. Or investors don't invest in franchises that end up not guarantying profit.That's why films that don't do well often times don't get sequels. Of course the studios can convince them otherwise and may still get them to keep investing but bros when the losses keep getting consistent, they will pull it off. It's business. Just because Zaslav has taken some risks doesn't mean if the DC products start incurring losses that nothing will be done. I am not talking about underperforming but outright flops. Like the Flash for instance. And of course the critical acclaim will also factor. Go read through films that critically got planned and ended up incurring losses, they never got sequels.
Studios don't finance movie projects on their lonesome, they gather investors from various places. That's why most times you see product placement of certain brands in films like having characters use a specific laptop, gadget or drink or whatever show up in scenes. It's subliminal advertising.
Watch the end credits and you will see those who put money in film projects distributed by Studios. I am surprised we are having this conversation sef.

abduleez1:


Can you tell me who's the investors?? The same investors are absent in other studios??

Bro, studio films are funded by investors. This isn't rocket science, man. How am I supposed to tell you who their investors are? Do I work with Hollywood? Come on, WB is a public liability company with shareholders and investors, same as other studios. Zaslav's discovery owns majority shares but doesn't mean he is sole proprietor.