Jump to content

DC Movies- if at first you don't succeed...


Cassandra

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

Apparently, they're going to make a black Superman movie and are on the search for a star. They're looking for a real . . .

 

Icon.

 

I mean . . . do the DC movie people even read comics? This is supposed to be an alternate reality / Elseworlds thing set in its own continuity, but they have other fully fleshed out black characters on tap, too. Who could exist in the same continuity (such as it is) as their other properties. It's like they're putting zero effort in.

 

Putting it high on my list of not going to bother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thought about what DC is trying.

 

Remember the Black exploitation films of the early 70s?  Stereotype driven would be one of the kinder things to say about them, generally.  "We're putting black people in this and making it seem like a black story because it's so cool to do so!!"  Yes, well, an article pointed out that DC's doing Diversity...black Superman, Latino Blue Beetle, gay Green Lantern.  (Well, the last certainly doesn't violate any kind of canon because there's a lot of them.)  

I smell Diversity Exploitation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comic books were "woke" decades ago. Like the arts often are, they were ahead of the curve the majority of society was riding on. Their characters don't need to be changed to be relevant, there's more than enough diversity and representation to draw from already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hollywood is loathe to take a chance on anything new and unproven. So they hedge their bets by making a movie with a black superhero in the title role, and calling him Superman in order to create fan interest that wouldn't otherwise be there. From what I can see, every race-bent or gender-bent version of an iconic character is a lazy, creatively bankrupt way to add diversity and representation while claiming it is a "fresh, new take" on the character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, zslane said:

Hollywood is loathe to take a chance on anything new and unproven. So they hedge their bets by making a movie with a black superhero in the title role, and calling him Superman in order to create fan interest that wouldn't otherwise be there. From what I can see, every race-bent or gender-bent version of an iconic character is a lazy, creatively bankrupt way to add diversity and representation while claiming it is a "fresh, new take" on the character.

 

People love Jaime Reyes and Miles Morales, and Ryan Choi is not just my favorite Atom but one of my favorite characters period.  All of these characters IMHO are fresh and interesting.  So obviously our mileage varies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

From what I can see, every race-bent or gender-bent version of an iconic character is a lazy, creatively bankrupt way to add diversity and representation while claiming it is a "fresh, new take" on the character.

 

Its worse than that, its cynical exploitation.  They aren't trying to promote diversity or celebrate x ethnic group or whatever.  To whatever extent they are trying to add 'representation' its way down the list.

 

They're trying to use this to make more money.  Its like the story Chuck Dixon tells of when he had a crossover comic to write with Green Arrow/Green Lantern when it was Connor Hawke and Kyle Rayner.  The editor demanded he do a scene where they kiss, since Chuck had written Connor as being really awkward around women.  The editor's idea was "he wonders if he's gay and gets Kyle to kiss him to find out" and wanted a cover of them smooching.

 

Chuck said "hell no" because it made no sense (they didn't even know each other) and because he figured if you're homosexual, you know, you're not confused and will solve it all with a kiss like some warped princess story.  The only reason the editor wanted it was because it would sell a lot of copies, get huge publicity, and lots of interviews and attention for the editor.

 

Why was Connor so awkward around women?  Because he was raised in a freaking monastery and because Chuck thought it would be a nice contrast with his dad (the previous Green Arrow) who was a ridiculous horndog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also true, most likely, that I'm being cynical and distrusting Hollywood.  One can argue that the biggest movie event of 2020 was the night ABC showed Black Panther, after Chadwick Boseman's death.  Black Panther wasn't a great diversity movie, it was a great movie that incorporated diversity elements.  Now add in that Hollywood generally is being hammered for lack of diversity  So...why are they *really* releasing a black Superman movie?  What is going to make a gay Green Lantern a better choice than another straight Green Lantern?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

So...why are they *really* releasing a black Superman movie? 

 

They watched Marvel put out two meh, okay, movies and make a billion dollars on each, based on heavy diversity marketing and social media shaming.  Of course the Avengers connection was a big help, too.  If they'd put out Captain Marvel now and it probably makes half as much, if that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ranxerox said:

People love Jaime Reyes and Miles Morales, and Ryan Choi is not just my favorite Atom but one of my favorite characters period.  All of these characters IMHO are fresh and interesting. 

 

I would argue that what makes them interesting is their personalities, and maybe their personal histories, not the costume they wear or the superhero name they have. They could have, and should have, been given new costumes, names, and maybe even powers. In other words, entirely new characters. The only reason to call them Blue Beetle, Spider-Man, and the Atom is to cash in on their recognition factor and existing fan base. But, like I said, that is lazy and creatively empty; it happens only to hedge bets and exploit a known "name". These characters, if they are really any good, deserve to be their own superheroes, and not just inherit the name/mantle of an already popular one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zslane said:

 

I would argue that what makes them interesting is their personalities, and maybe their personal histories, not the costume they wear or the superhero name they have. They could have, and should have, been given new costumes, names, and maybe even powers. In other words, entirely new characters. The only reason to call them Blue Beetle, Spider-Man, and the Atom is to cash in on their recognition factor and existing fan base. But, like I said, that is lazy and creatively empty; it happens only to hedge bets and exploit a known "name". These characters, if they are really any good, deserve to be their own superheroes, and not just inherit the name/mantle of an already popular one.

 

Thanks.  I wanted to say that but my brain's misfiring today, and it never came out coherently.....
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, zslane said:

 

I would argue that what makes them interesting is their personalities, and maybe their personal histories, not the costume they wear or the superhero name they have. They could have, and should have, been given new costumes, names, and maybe even powers. In other words, entirely new characters. The only reason to call them Blue Beetle, Spider-Man, and the Atom is to cash in on their recognition factor and existing fan base. But, like I said, that is lazy and creatively empty; it happens only to hedge bets and exploit a known "name". These characters, if they are really any good, deserve to be their own superheroes, and not just inherit the name/mantle of an already popular one.

 

The problem being the big companies have so much invested in Bruce Wayne/Batman, Hal Jordan/Green Lantern, Peter Parker/Spider-Man, etc. for marketing and royalties, that they won't take the chance on a living world, where Bruce Wayne dies, Grayson steps up or passes on the mantle of the Bat, and so on, where there are actual Legacy characters.

One of the reasons Morales works as Spider-Man, is that he is a different character than Peter. And he isn't 100% a clone. He has different abilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Greywind said:

One of the reasons Morales works as Spider-Man, is that he is a different character than Peter. And he isn't 100% a clone. He has different abilities.

 

Indeed. In my view, he deserves his own superhero name and a costume that isn't so obviously just a derivation of the Spider-Man costume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The problem being the big companies have so much invested in Bruce Wayne/Batman, Hal Jordan/Green Lantern, Peter Parker/Spider-Man, etc. for marketing and royalties, that they won't take the chance on a living world, where Bruce Wayne dies, Grayson steps up or passes on the mantle of the Bat, and so on, where there are actual Legacy characters.

 

I think that was Stan Lee's goal at first, you can really tell that because in the earliest Spider-Man comics the time is literally moving at the same rate in the comic as in the real world: each issue was one month apart in comic time.  Which I think would have been brilliant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Greywind said:

The problem being the big companies have so much invested in Bruce Wayne/Batman, Hal Jordan/Green Lantern, Peter Parker/Spider-Man, etc. for marketing and royalties, that they won't take the chance on a living world, where Bruce Wayne dies, Grayson steps up or passes on the mantle of the Bat, and so on, where there are actual Legacy characters.

 

I think it's a question of audience.  Comic fans are really into continuity and progress, until something happens they don't like then they like to pretend it never happened.
On the other hand, it takes decades and appearances in multiple media to really cement a character in the public imagination.  If Grayson had been Batman for 20 years (and lets be real, even that is a stretch.  Bruce has been Bats since 1939), and about to hand it off to Damien Wayne (or someone) in the comics, that is just confusing for most people who aren't up on comics and there is pressure to revert to form for the big movie.  It's why most character reset to their "classic" configuration when a big movie comes out.  They would rather irritate comic fans than confuse people who start picking up comics because they like the movie/show.

 

Even comic fans tend to demand a return to form.  It really looked like Wally West was really going to be the Flash forever, but nope, it took 23 years but Barry Allen returned as the "real" Flash.


It's the same reason the Champions Universe is filled with characters right out of the 80s in 2021 (and people still miss Terror Inc 20 years later).  Once the fans develop some attachment to a character, they are eternal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, zslane said:

 

I would argue that what makes them interesting is their personalities, and maybe their personal histories, not the costume they wear or the superhero name they have. They could have, and should have, been given new costumes, names, and maybe even powers. In other words, entirely new characters. The only reason to call them Blue Beetle, Spider-Man, and the Atom is to cash in on their recognition factor and existing fan base. But, like I said, that is lazy and creatively empty; it happens only to hedge bets and exploit a known "name". These characters, if they are really any good, deserve to be their own superheroes, and not just inherit the name/mantle of an already popular one.

 

 

If the characters are interesting and feel fresh, that is a good indicator that they are not creatively empty.  Writers and artist are putting thought and effort into crafting these legacy characters.  The fact that they are legacy characters is because the major comic book companies are risk adverse, and because legacy characters tend to sell better than other new characters.  There have been plenty of new, non-legacy characters that have come out in the last 20 years and most people can't name even one of them.

 

Being risk adverse and wanting to sell as many issues as possible is not the same as being lazy and creatively empty.  Different adjectives are required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Ranxerox said:

Being risk adverse and wanting to sell as many issues as possible is not the same as being lazy and creatively empty.  Different adjectives are required.

 

You're right, being risk averse and profit-driven is not "the same" as being lazy and un-creative; rather, the latter is (too often) the result of the former. One begets the other, which is a shame. And worse, it's not necessary. For any creator (or publisher or movie executive) who thinks making Superman black is the best (or even just a good) way to make superheroes popular with black audiences, I offer Black Panther, Falcon, Storm, Blade, and Luke Cage as far superior alternatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zslane said:

For any creator (or publisher or movie executive) who thinks making Superman black is the best (or even just a good) way to make superheroes popular with black audiences, I offer Black Panther, Falcon, Storm, Blade, and Luke Cage as far superior alternatives.

 

Marvel movies are superior, but I think a better alternative to Superman would be one of the many original DC black superheroes. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a well done Green Lantern (without the corps for the first movie, and not goofy or trying to do everything at once), with John Stewart would be an excellent way of doing the job instead of some elseworlds alternate superman.  Stewart is well liked and respected, been around a long time, and frankly Hal Jordan is boring as hell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I think a well done Green Lantern (without the corps for the first movie, and not goofy or trying to do everything at once), with John Stewart would be an excellent way of doing the job instead of some elseworlds alternate superman.  Stewart is well liked and respected, been around a long time, and frankly Hal Jordan is boring as hell. 

They have been writing a GLC movie with Jordan and Stewart. Johns is supposed to be writing a script for it, as well as doing a GL tv show for HBOMAX

CES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2021 at 7:15 PM, Ranxerox said:

 

 

If the characters are interesting and feel fresh, that is a good indicator that they are not creatively empty.  Writers and artist are putting thought and effort into crafting these legacy characters.  The fact that they are legacy characters is because the major comic book companies are risk adverse, and because legacy characters tend to sell better than other new characters.  There have been plenty of new, non-legacy characters that have come out in the last 20 years and most people can't name even one of them.

 

Being risk adverse and wanting to sell as many issues as possible is not the same as being lazy and creatively empty.  Different adjectives are required.

I have no problem with legacy characters, diversity, or trying a new angle on an old character. I don't agree that writers, artists, or editors are putting much thought into what they are creating except maybe for Miles Morales. In the legacy characters that I have seen, the personal history of the characters involved are railed.

 

Connor Hawke is the son of Green Arrow and a Temple maid. There is no point in Green Arrow's timeline when this could have happened. And if it did happen at the point indicated by Dixon, Connor would only have been 5 to 10 years old when he was intro'd.

 

(Sidenote here: I think Mike Grell's Green Arrow and the Hal Jordan Green Lantern were actually supposed to be ten to fifteen years older than what they should have been because the writers or editors couldn't do math. Same with Black Lightning. His timeline is manure.)

  

Jaime Reyes is using Dan Garrett's old beetle. So Garrett's beetle switched from being a mystic artifact to a superscience artifact that no one could figure out because no one knew the password that just latches on to Jaime to spark an alien invasion after thousands of years. Why doesn't it use the same powers?

 

The gay Green Lantern is Alan Scott who after a hundred years on the job, four romances/marriages, two grown kids that he didn't know were his, has suddenly come out of the closet.

 

Jack Knight, Starman, is nothing but retcons from one end to the other and most of them were not good. Ted Knight being part of the Manhattan Project is such a failure in research, it's the first thing that jumps to mind when someone says name a character whose history was railed.

 

Thunder and Lightning, Black Lightning's daughters, should not have been created because Black Lightning has only been around as long as Firestorm, and his actual age is a little older than Nightwing. He broke up with his wife before they had kids, and moved to Gotham City from Metropolis with no signs of being reconciled with her, and in point of fact I cannot recall him even dealing with her all the years the Outsiders ran. Then boom his time with the Outsiders is railed and he is married, middle aged and has two almost adult kids.

 

Teen Titans, period. 

 

The in-universe explanation is that the characters are being rewritten every time they save the universe. The real explanation is the writers come up with an idea which a thousand fan fiction writers have already done, and go let's make this official. Then they retcon whatever they need to for their idea to fit because it would be harder for Jaime to just find another blue beetle, Connor not to be Oliver's kid but related to him, Black Lightning to be Static's teacher.

 

And there are hundreds of other things done the same way on the whim of the writer such as Superboy being the clone of Lex Luthor, or Cyborg founding the Justice League instead of the Teen Titans, or Firestorm being a fire elemental.

CES                 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...