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

[dmjalund]

4 minutes ago, csyphrett said:

I think Cleve is right. I think every time a DC character gets a new movie team, they go back to the origin for whatever reason. I think the newest Batman is the first one that didn't have it as part of their reboot. 

CES 

It's Uncle Vlad not Un Clev Lad

[Logan D. Hurricanes]

32 minutes ago, dmjalund said:

It's Uncle Vlad not Un Clev Lad

 

[Starlord]

1 hour ago, dmjalund said:

It's Uncle Vlad not Un Clev Lad

 

Isn't Un Clev Lad a member of the Legion of Super Heroes?

[Hugh Neilson]

4 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

OK, but can't the same argument be made for at least Superman and Batman?  But they often repeat those origins.

 

I think the bigger edge in the MCU is they kept one ongoing storyline for so long, so they tell the origins once, and it still holds 15 movies later.   And since it seemed every reboot was a complete re-interpretation, well, gotta go back over the origins again....

 

Yup - Marvel made yet another leap that DC has not.

[Logan D. Hurricanes]

1 hour ago, Starlord said:

 

Isn't Un Clev Lad a member of the Legion of Super Heroes?

 

That's how I read it. Even knowing what it's 'supposed' to be, I just see Un Clev Lad. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I do not understand the compulsion to show origin stories in comics or film.  Nobody needed to know Conan's origin story (although they still showed it), or James Bond, or Ethan Whatsisface in Mission Impossible, or a thousand other characters.  They just are who they are and do their thing.

[dmjalund]

Uncleave Lad would have come very handy after encounters with The Persuader and his Atomic Axe

[csyphrett]

14 hours ago, dmjalund said:

It's Uncle Vlad not Un Clev Lad

That's on me. I apologize, Vlad. I kept seeing Un Cleveland for some reason.

CES 

[unclevlad]

I've been to Cleveland, so I can kind of understand an un-Cleveland sentiment....

[unclevlad]

This isn't DC per se, but it's Hollywood generally, and I think has more than just the immediate applicability.

https://www.cracked.com/article_35058_the-unspoken-path-to-hollywood-success-betray-crush-destroy-your-peers.html

[death tribble]

And I read it as Uncleave Lad.

 

Too much D+D

[Bazza]

I just read it as “skip to next post”…  

[unclevlad]

Hmphhhh!!!!

 

<does best Miss Piggy while storming off......>

[Bazza]

Did someone hear anything? 🤷‍♂️

[Ternaugh]

Interesting video on how WB/HBOmax got to where it is:

 

 

[Lord Liaden]

What strikes me most about DC and Marvel comics today, is that they seem to be produced by people who don't like comics. Heroes keep being torn down, shown to be stupid or weak or villainous at heart. Stories are devoid of hope or idealism, and include shocking elements which seem to serve no purpose except to shock. Illustrations are loud, flashy, and crudely made, and are just splash panels with no effort made to link them into a visual story. And when fans complain and don't buy them, the comics creators blame them for not appreciating their depth and innovation.

[Hermit]

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

What strikes me most about DC and Marvel comics today, is that they seem to be produced by people who don't like comics. Heroes keep being torn down, shown to be stupid or weak or villainous at heart. Stories are devoid of hope or idealism, and include shocking elements which seem to serve no purpose except to shock. Illustrations are loud, flashy, and crudely made, and are just splash panels with no effort made to link them into a visual story. And when fans complain and don't buy them, the comics creators blame them for not appreciating their depth and innovation.

 

Sometimes I think it's vanity. A lot of folks want to be 'visionary' when it actually works better at times when one sees themself as instead a caretaker . Not that you can't mix the two, and not that visionaries don't sometimes get rightly celebrated for their works in comics, but while they can be too risk adverse, caretakers tend to make sure the essentials of a character are treated as just that: essential.

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Chuck Dixon says that in his experience and observation, these are not people who get into comics because they love the medium and storytelling, but because they see it as a stepping stone to something bigger and (to them) better like script writing and directing movies.

 

Also there is a financial element here.  DC and Marvel comics divisions are hemorrhaging money, they are net losers. Any profits they might see are from merchandizing (spider man tee shirts, batman sheets, 'action figures' etc).  They are looking at ways to cut costs, so they don't go with established, professional, and proven talent, they go with cheaper, newer, younger talent they grab from stuff like webcomics creators who have neither the clue about nor inclination to learn about storytelling and layouts etc in comic books as opposed to a 4 panel webcomic.

 

And of course, there's the youth factor.  Most creative companies are not at all inclined to hire older people, you die at around age 40 in Hollywood, even for writers.  They want younger writers, artists, directors etc because they "understand the youth market".  So they're less likely to hire older and experienced talent even if they could afford it.

[unclevlad]

2 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

What strikes me most about DC and Marvel comics today, is that they seem to be produced by people who don't like comics. Heroes keep being torn down, shown to be stupid or weak or villainous at heart. Stories are devoid of hope or idealism, and include shocking elements which seem to serve no purpose except to shock. Illustrations are loud, flashy, and crudely made, and are just splash panels with no effort made to link them into a visual story. And when fans complain and don't buy them, the comics creators blame them for not appreciating their depth and innovation.

 

Yeah.  I overall don't follow any of them, but sometimes (usually based on stuff in this thread) check out a few things.  The other day, ran across a story that mentioned "fridging."  I'm like...what...oh.  Good god, WHY?  That's beyond sick.  The point was apparently to supply a background motive for a character to go dark avenger, IIRC...well, cripes, that's 2 or 3 steps beyond what's needed.

 

There's also a difference when an incident is used to paint a villain, versus to help define a hero.  (Classic case:  Hannibal Lecter.)  But they don't care.  IMO, someone who'll write something like this...and many other things...is disconnected from anyone but their own little world...and they know it's unreal.  So whatever happens, isn't real.  An alternative explanation is, it's writer trolling.  Shock and awe strictly used to generate buzz.   

 

48 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

And of course, there's the youth factor.  Most creative companies are not at all inclined to hire older people, you die at around age 40 in Hollywood, even for writers.  They want younger writers, artists, directors etc because they "understand the youth market".  So they're less likely to hire older and experienced talent even if they could afford it.

 

I'll disagree with the motive...altho grant, that might be the lip service used.  Non-established writers are:

--LOTS cheaper

--much more readily controlled.  They don't have the clout to stand up to moronic execs who want some harebrained ideas of their own.  To borrow from Jubal Harshaw:  “You have to give an editor something to change, or he gets frustrated. After he pees in it himself, he likes the flavor much better, so he buys it.”

[Lord Liaden]

The MCU has had great success by -- at least until recently -- staying true to the essence and heritage of their characters, and by telling stories like those from comics, emphasizing hope, compassion, responsibility, self-sacrifice. Those films and television shows were made by people who know and respect the source material. That successful example leads me to believe that superhero comics could regain a lot of their market if they returned to the things about the genre the majority of people want.

 

The people behind DC's television and film efforts often don't seem to know or respect the source material, or they don't care. There's a scene in Zack Snyder's infamous cut of Justice League that stands out in my mind as an example. Superman joins the final fight against Steppenwolf, puts him flat on his back, then uses his heat vision to cut off part of the villain's projecting skull bone, causing him great pain and mutilating him. Supes then proceeds to hammer Steppenwolf's body, again and again, while his opponent is clearly helpless to resist. That isn't Superman. That's Zack Snyder's power fantasy. Knowing that Superman always holds himself back from brutality is one big reason why the world trusts him, despite his awesome power.

[unclevlad]

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

That's Zack Snyder's power fantasy.

 

Feels like that holds true for many of the DC writers

[slikmar]

LL, agree almost completely with the exception that I would say the people who were doing the DC TV shows were actually doing a pretty good job of staying to the characters. Only major difference to me was GA becoming Batman, in effect. Snyder should never have been put in charge of any Superman or WW projects (really, I would say anything other then Batman, honestly). Why Johns wasn't in charge from the beginning, I have no idea.

[Hugh Neilson]

Arrow felt part-Batman, but also a journey from vigilantism to heroism (with some backsliding along the way).  Diggle calling him out in an early Season 1 episode that, if we're only in this to get the guys in the book, not to protect innocent people, then I'm not in this at all was an early moment in this regard.

 

Flash, on the other hand - very Four Colour

[Lord Liaden]

The CW's super-shows were mostly more respectful of the characters' heritage than most of the Warner movies, except for the campiness of Legends of Tomorrow, the in-your-face feminism of Batwoman, and the edginess of Titans. Chronic plot holes were also annoying, as was all the teenage relationship angst coming from supposed adults (but that's endemic to the CW in general). However, turning Superman into a jobber to make his female cousin look good is something I'll never forgive them for. At least the new Superman and Lois series has avoided most of those flaws, and given us a proper rendition of the Man of Steel.

[Pattern Ghost]

Legends' campiness was great. At least they managed to have fun and not wallow in too much CW angst.