DC Studios THREAD - GunnVerse Begins - Chapter ONE: Gods & Monsters

Most people consider DC a fail because they didn't want to include the "Nolanverse" with the DC Universe.

Why not build upon something that was already successful? I never read anything as to why they didn't other than Bale wouldn't do it unless Nolan was apart...Because it didn't fit Snyders vision?

I mean this is really a deadhorse. Nolans world just too grounded and That portrayal of Batman just wont work with meta humans all of a sudden. Reports are Affleck will be a real dark Batman but actually a social playboy (pretends to be) Bruce which is good. Itll be weird to have a comepletely different personality or take on Bruce and then say it is Nolanverse.

Plus you also got to respect Nolans work, he chose to end it there and if he isnt happy with a continuation then why burn that bridge?

nolanverse is great but people just need to move on, it ends with a guy named Blake being the new Batman, I mean come on. Plus TDKR had Gotham histage for months and months and no other hroes appears and tries to help?

Plus even if Bruce returns in that world, dude is already dilapidated when he returned jn TDKR, he isnt goingto be the experienced Bats that could outsmart a noob Superman. Dude barely beat Bane. :lol:
 
Last edited:
I'm not a DC head like that but even I can tell there's no way a Nolan envisioned Batman can exist in a justice League world.

They went super realistic. They seriously depowered Bane. No way is Bats supposed to be able to go blow to blow with him right?
 
Well they couldnt even give Bane venom to roid him up. He can go toe to toe with him but in Batman style with gadgets and smarts and being tactical, nit ounch for punch, that wasnt the Bats we got in Nolans world.

Again not to ofend anyone, i loved the trilogy and TDK is still my number 1 comic film but the Batman we saw there isnt the Batman or even Bruce in the comics in its truest form. It really somewhat fails in comparison and just a shell of Batman if you really look into it.

Plus whats cool in the film was they tried to really eplain his gears so it made sense. That is great... For that film. In a world where aliens fly and has suoer strength, you aint got to explain why a vehicle was not approved by the army for jumping rivers or tenches to build a temporary bridge.
 
Last edited:
While we're briefly on the subject of Bane, I have to say I believe Nolan didn't really want to make TDKR. That movie is the best mess I've ever seen
laugh.gif
 
Yea man, it was really weird seeing them trade punches.

It felt like watching Captain America trade blows with The Thing.

If I see any similar exchange between Bats and Supes in the new movie and there is no kryptonite around, I'm immediately walking out the door :lol:
 
Last edited:
Looks like Bats is going to have the suit and he will likely weaken too. With the suit it shiuldnt be far fetch that he could take that punch here and there. Lex suit could take it in the comics and IM could take Thors hammer in the movie and Hulks punches the comics (i kniw diferent worlds).

I could see the fight being Bats just trying his best to attack Supes and Supes just trying to stop him without throwing punches especially if he kniws he is a good guy. All speculation really but I could see their first fight being like that.

Second fight with a suit and maybe he finds his weakness.
 
Last edited:
With the "success" of the show Arrow, why hasn't Green Arrow been included in anything movie related? Is he not a popular enough character to portray on the big screen? Is he the Hawkeye of DC? :lol:
 
Nope!

Sadly...


Two weeks ago The CW network preniered The Flash and a true apple to apples comparison was created. These two shows, Arrow and The Flash, have so much in common that the comparisons were inevitable.
Both shows appear on the same network in the same timeslot. They both are based on DC comic properties and feature Superhero characters. Lastly, both shows are aime at, at marketed to, a younger demographic. With these two shows sharing in so many traits, why is The Flash such a ratings success while Arrow continues to dwell in the cellar of ratings, losing more and more viewers?

Arrow debuted at a 1.3 rating, with 4.17 mil viewers, and then steadily, with a few bumps along the way, shed viewers and never appraoched the 4 mil viewer mark again. This week arrow, again, finished lower than the previous week and failed to reach the 1.0 mark, only getting a lowly .8 rating.

The Flash debuted at a 1.9 rating with 4.83 mil viewers. this was a huge ratings success and accomplished something that Arrow has never done. The Flash bested both Fox and ABC in its time slot for the night.

In its second week, the Flash duplicated this feat and only had a marginal loss in ratings (1.7) while staying above the 4 mil viewer mark, again accomplishing something that arrow had never acchieved.



And Aquaman is still the Hawkeye of DC. :lol:
 
Last edited:
That's strange. I plowed thru two seasons of Arrow just so I could catch up to the week to week following, and I enjoy the show a lot. I'm surprised that Flash is beating it comfortably.
 
I think it's just that Flash always features super powers and in superhero shows that is what most want to see. That is the biggest disappointment with AoS and it's rating would vastly improve if they gave Skye or Coulson some powers to utilize all the time. At least that is how I see it, putting a super powered villain helps a lot for Flash too and that is how Smallville maintained its 10 year run.

Flash is also a bigger draw than GA. Arrow isn't a bad show but people really isn't always looking for quality.
 
That's strange. I plowed thru two seasons of Arrow just so I could catch up to the week to week following, and I enjoy the show a lot. I'm surprised that Flash is beating it comfortably.

apparently Arrow wasn't good at the beginning and got better as time went on, The Flash has strong buzz from the jump.

Most people consider DC a fail because they didn't want to include the "Nolanverse" with the DC Universe.

Why not build upon something that was already successful? I never read anything as to why they didn't other than Bale wouldn't do it unless Nolan was apart...Because it didn't fit Snyders vision?

The logic of the nolan verse doesn't really allow for super heroes.

plus the nolan treatment is too specific to batman, doesn't wrok for other heroes.
 
Last edited:
I still feel like the smartest move would be to have BvS lead directly into JL and then have a WW movie after that..

But maybe that's cause I still think they picked a weak WW in the first place.. Have a hard time imagining her carrying a film by herself
 
Have ya'll talked about the dude to play the Flash? This dude Erza Miller i'm not familiar with at all, but i don't like his look one bit
Juiced to have Momoa play Aquaman :pimp: some of the more recent iterations of aquaman I've seen are badass and worked for me to break away from that lame role we usually equate him with. I hope it translates well on the big screen
 
Last edited:
Carrie Kelly?

No confirmation, Jenna Malone was seen on set before but there is a chance she might just be friends with Snyder as she starred in Sucker Punch. Who really knows at this point.
 
Have ya'll talked about the dude to play the Flash? This dude Erza Miller i'm not familiar with at all, but i don't like his look one bit
Juiced to have Momoa play Aquaman :pimp: some of the more recent iterations of aquaman I've seen are badass and worked for me to break away from that lame role we usually equate him with. I hope it translates well on the big screen

Ezra, I remember best from Perks of Being a Wallflower. He was great there. He basically played the comedic/best friend role and he did the job well.

He also played this really creepy dude in We Need to Talk about Kevin. So he's pretty versatile.

Don't really know him from anything else, but I think he'll be all right as Flash.
 
I think DOJ will teach people not to react so harshly to casting news before they get a chance to see the movie. I think every person casted will do an excellent job in their roles. Me personally , i'm impatiently waiting until 2016.
 
I'm not big on all these big name superstars in these roles though. It'll be so weird to see Will Smith in one of these movies.
 
a few pages ago i read about quinn and how dc might not be ready to reintroduce the joker. if they did, who could possibly fill that role after the performance from ledger?
 
Not big on DC but would a MM solo movie work?
If there was anyone competent over at WB then yeah. It just has to be done right. Maybe if they'd pay Nolan a lot (or just not Snyder) he could get something good going for direction and then just get a good action sic fi writer for the screenplay (not Goyer).

DC passing on Whedon as a mistake is hindsight being 20/20. I mean come on, Whdeons script was from 2005, a year after Catwoman bombed. Can you blame DC/WB for not taking a risk at another female led movie from a director whose been mainly done tv shows?
Yes. You blame WB for okaying that Catwoman trash. Then being fearful and idiotic thinking female superhero movies won't be profitable cuz they tried to over ppl trash. It's incredibly stupid. They should be blamed.

Not to mention this just goes to show they don't know way a good script looks like or ignores any director/writer that's been consistently good in their career. Whedon should never even be mentioned in the same breath as Catwoman and whoever made it :smh:
Another thing about feige, you guys really think there is another producer out there who would see something in the Guardians of the Galaxy and make a big budget film with that property and actually succeed the way it did?
Yes and he just quoted you :pimp:

If only it was a Big 3 instead of a Big 2. Let there be a 3rd comic company that just got bought by a movie studio. All they'd need to is tap me for the position and billions would be mad.
Nope!

Sadly...


Two weeks ago The CW network preniered The Flash and a true apple to apples comparison was created. These two shows, Arrow and The Flash, have so much in common that the comparisons were inevitable.
Both shows appear on the same network in the same timeslot. They both are based on DC comic properties and feature Superhero characters. Lastly, both shows are aime at, at marketed to, a younger demographic. With these two shows sharing in so many traits, why is The Flash such a ratings success while Arrow continues to dwell in the cellar of ratings, losing more and more viewers?

Arrow debuted at a 1.3 rating, with 4.17 mil viewers, and then steadily, with a few bumps along the way, shed viewers and never appraoched the 4 mil viewer mark again. This week arrow, again, finished lower than the previous week and failed to reach the 1.0 mark, only getting a lowly .8 rating.

The Flash debuted at a 1.9 rating with 4.83 mil viewers. this was a huge ratings success and accomplished something that Arrow has never done. The Flash bested both Fox and ABC in its time slot for the night.

In its second week, the Flash duplicated this feat and only had a marginal loss in ratings (1.7) while staying above the 4 mil viewer mark, again accomplishing something that arrow had never acchieved.



And Aquaman is still the Hawkeye of DC. :lol:
Not surprised at all :lol: I will say ppl do just like Flash more than Green Arrow. He's always been seen as a sort of knockoff to some. As in Batman in all green with a bow and arrow instead of a whole bunch of cool high tech gadgets cuz you know he's a billionaire.

Plus they're just not doing the whole superhero/vigilante with no powers right imo but first the writing an acting would have to be better.
 
Last edited:
Yes. You blame WB for okaying that Catwoman trash. Then being fearful and idiotic thinking female superhero movies won't be profitable cuz they tried to over ppl trash. It's incredibly stupid. They should be blamed.

Not to mention this just goes to show they don't know way a good script looks like or ignores any director/writer that's been consistently good in their career. Whedon should never even be mentioned in the same breath as Catwoman and whoever made it mean.gif


Nah, again hindsight man. Elektra came out that year too which sucked so again as a CEO, you just got to look and see a woman led film isn't successful. Yes the script was trash but that;s basically writers not knowing how to write strong female characters. Back then, even crappy films made money. Look at Daredevil? ~$70m budget and made $100m more and that is a success, successful enough to greenlit the Elektra film. Back then almost any superhero film made money as long as it is led by a male protagonist. Even Ghost Rider doubled it's budget. :lol: Punisher was the only one that wasn't the biggest success but it was also rated R.

Today, it is different. You got Hunger Games and Divergent being real successful on the action front then Heat, Bridemaids and Pitch Perfect being big and successful as well. Times has changed, Lucy is a legit success. Now is the time to make female led film. Make those films 8-10 years ago and it'll likely flop.

Seriously though, if Whedon failed to deliver in the Avengers, no one would be demanding his WW script to be made today. I liked Buffy and Dollhouse was okay but they weren't great and that was pretty much all in his resume.



Just gon' have to agree to disagree because I can just see this dragging on and we won't be moving on but that is the way I see/saw it.
 
Nah b. It's not hindsight. It's just stating the repeated blunders WB has made and then they basically shoot themselves in the foot for.

They decided to make Catwoman, that's on them. Shooting down Whedon after the fact. It really aint about Avengers to me. I watched all them seasons of Buffy. WB just make bad decisions a lot with this area when they're not making Batman movies.

I'm not buying the female superhero movie won't work bull ****. That's just continued repeated ignorance on their part. It's not that female superhero movies won't make money, it's that bad movies don't make money and hell you can call that hindsight if you want too but I'm sure the ppl involved in **** movies know they're making **** movies at some point.

If the movies suck it won't make money. If they're good, they will.
 
Last edited:
Nah, again hindsight man. Elektra came out that year too which sucked so again as a CEO, you just got to look and see a woman led film isn't successful. Yes the script was trash but that;s basically writers not knowing how to write strong female characters. Back then, even crappy films made money. Look at Daredevil? ~$70m budget and made $100m more and that is a success, successful enough to greenlit the Elektra film. Back then almost any superhero film made money as long as it is led by a male protagonist. Even Ghost Rider doubled it's budget. :lol: Punisher was the only one that wasn't the biggest success but it was also rated R.

Today, it is different. You got Hunger Games and Divergent being real successful on the action front then Heat, Bridemaids and Pitch Perfect being big and successful as well. Times has changed, Lucy is a legit success. Now is the time to make female led film. Make those films 8-10 years ago and it'll likely flop.

Seriously though, if Whedon failed to deliver in the Avengers, no one would be demanding his WW script to be made today. I liked Buffy and Dollhouse was okay but they weren't great and that was pretty much all in his resume.



Just gon' have to agree to disagree because I can just see this dragging on and we won't be moving on but that is the way I see/saw it.

yeah thats a Genetic fallacy and insanely dumb, you don't pay CEO to make logically fallacious decision.

bunch of movies staring men fail every year no one says male lead wont work, no one said we can't have another blond guy because Green lantern flopped.

Today, it is different.

there is nothing different about today and back then; other than quality films starring women have been made, forward thinking studios were able to see an under served market.


Thats not hind sight, thats appropriate criticism and they deserved to be fired.
 
Last edited:
Nah b. It's not hindsight. It's just stating the repeated blunders WB has made and then they basically shoot themselves in the foot for.

They decided to make Catwoman, that's on them. Shooting down Whedon after the fact. It really aint about Avengers to me. I watched all them seasons of Buffy. WB just make bad decisions a lot with this area when they're not making Batman movies.

I'm not buying the female superhero movie won't work bull ****. That's just continued repeated ignorance on their part. It's not that female superhero movies won't make money, it's that bad movies don't make money and hell you can call that hindsight if you want too but I'm sure the ppl involved in **** movies know they're making **** movies at some point.

That is obviously hindsight because of Whedons success. Despite Schumachesr crappy films, those made some money, doubling the budget was more than enough to make a film profitable back then.

Plus you guys are acting like Whedons is going to be a sure fire hit already, I would have loved to see it but if I were in the CEOs shoes, I can see where he is coming from after seeing Catwoman and Elektra flop, that already give any female led film to come after a bad taste. Again it's not like DC didn't try, look at all the multiple other scripts they looked at and the tv pilots that was shot where they managed to make Palicki look like Chyna.

Again I completely agree with their bad decisions, lots of them, I blame the CEO and I already said that hiring Nolan was a struck of lightning but I could also see why he would be hesistant with Whedon and his WW film.


If the movies suck it won't make money. If they're good, they will.

This is obviously isn't true, Transformers continually make billions. TMNT made money that a sequel is on the way.




yeah thats a Genetic fallacy and insanely dumb, you don't pay CEO to make logically fallacious decision.

bunch of movies staring men fail every year no one says male lead wont work, no one said we can't have another blond guy because Green lantern flopped.

It's not fallacy, it migh tbe sexist and a stupid decision but it is true.

And of course a bunch of male led films are going to fail, most of the films are led by men. If two women led films are made and both fails, then to CEOs and business men who can be sexist, easily sees that as a bad investment on women, despite the film just sucking badly. Again that is all I am saying, I see the risk in it especially when Whedon is still unknown to the movie world and only has tv shows in his resume.

Again, there is a reason that there is barely an explosion of female led films today in comparison to a decade ago, 2 dcades ago, 3 decades ago. Hell the days of Arnold, Stallone, Willis, JVD, etc... action flicks of the 90's pretty much exploited women for the most part. Then you can go back to the cheesy films of old where they do sexploitation films.

Seriously, take a look at the history of women in films and the struggles they had. There are still critics out there who says women can't be funny and deny the success happening right now.



there is nothing different about today and back then; other than quality films starring women have been made, forward thinking studios were able to see an under served market.


Thats not hind sight, thats appropriate criticism and they deserved to be fired.

There is complete difference, you are insane if you don't think it is different. All these films for women are written by women so they understand how to make the film. Hollywood is still filled with male writers who just can't write for a woman. This was even a skit on Seinfeld, which runs pretty true. They also mentioned this when WW comics started, she was still exploited until some woman (forgot her name) started writing her books, it was in that PBS documentary.
 
Back
Top Bottom