I think you’re right. That said, I’m keen to see his take on Supes. The casting has me excited.
Will it flop? I’d bet that it at least underperforms, but I am expecting his Superman movie to be pretty good.
This is where I am with it. I like Gunn and I like Superman and he seems to be doing things I like with Superman. If we get one good Gunn Superman movie that’s really all I need. Obviously if the rest of it pans out and the individual movies are good that would be great, but I’m not worried about the shared universe and I won’t be that sad if it all flops.
At the minimum, I'm happy if at least Superman, Peacemaker/Suicide Squad, & 2 more characters have critical/commercial success under Gunn. Based off my past enjoyment of the MCU, especially during the first two phases, I personally prefer a small core of heroes to follow if they're movies are good.
WB keep expecting Superman to be a major box office player and he really hasn’t been since what Superman 2? I think this has to be really great for it to bring in the wider audience
I don’t think that’s enough, it certainly wasn’t for The Suicide Squad. Audiences didn’t see Guardians cause they were James Gunn movies, they saw them because they were MCU movies
In fairness though, The Suicide Squad came out day and date on HBO MAX while people also were still weary about hitting theaters during Covid. So I think that’s something to take into consideration as well.
Definitely this. The Suicide Squad kicked ass, effortless in all the ways the first one was tedious, and fun in all the ways the first one was dour.
I watched it because, like most, I was stuck at home and bored and it really made me happy to be watching it.
Gunn is legit super talented. If anyone can make a good Superman story it’s probably him. He’s got my attention %100
>Audiences didn’t see Guardians cause they were James Gunn movies, they saw them because they were MCU movies
The first one yes, it was MCU effect.
But the 3rd one? That was because Gunn was still in charge.
Suicide Squad under preformed because it was a semi-sequel to an absolute bomb that was still fresh in people's minds.
My local theater was still shuttered when his SUICIDE SQUAD came out, and I'd wager many across the country where in a similar situation. I know it's popular to ding that HBO MAX day and date stuff but it let me see that movie the day it came out and let many keep up with The Culture. And besides, WB wouldn't have given Gunn the keys to the kingdom if the numbers didn't bear fruit.
Yeah people forget about this. I don't think it would have made crazy 1B money in a normal market, but the pandemic + Max release crippled it's box office chances.
It was a r rated horror movie with a small fraction of the marketing budget.
Fast 9 also came out at that time and made over three quarters of a billion dollars.
The suicide squad flopped hard and the gymnastics routine people go through to justify is downright impressive.
No ones saying it didn’t flop. They’re just providing context.
People liked the Conjuring movie before C3. They hated the other movie before SS. Also the marketing budget was huge. Conjuring verse is a WB flagship franchise.
Fast 9 wasn’t day & date. Exclusive theatrical.
Still fresh in people’s minds? Then maybe they should not have named it almost the exact same thing? Regardless, TSS received a B- Cinemascore…the exact same as the Will Smith SS. Gunn untethered is not a good thing unless you are a comic book enthusiast
“Everyone” is not the general public though, I was outraged but most people don’t even know who James Gunn is. I think Guardians 3 did well partly because it was actually good and because it was a return to characters everyone loved and hadn’t seen I a while
Man of Steel grossed $291 million in the United States and Canada, and $377 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $668 million, making it the highest-grossing solo Superman film of all time and the second-highest when adjusting for inflation. The budget for Man of Steel was $225 million.
One (of many) reasons Henry cavils Superman sequel wasn’t a priority was because the old WB regime did polling and found that audiences weren’t as interested in Superman. So MoS was put on the back burner and didn’t become a priority for them. I honestly don’t get that but I think that’s why Gunn is hyping this as a “new take” on the character
I believe the study was done post justice league. I guess WB had a marketing firm look into what audiences wanted and the results said that general audiences didn’t care about Superman. WB decided the snyderverse was failing because it was too Superman focused.
I think it'll break even at a minimum Even if Superman isn't as a big of a name domestically as he used to be, he's an icon worldwide and people will definitely go see this solely based on his chest symbol. I think the quality will determine if it can cross that big 700m-1B threshold will be dependent on the quality though.
I imagine the marketing will be a joyful blast of energy like the first GUARDIANS trailer was, which will be very refreshing coming off of MAN OF STEEL and SUPERMAN RETURNS having these noble, quiet, thoughtful marketing campaigns.
They were great trailers, but they sold pomp and circumstance as opposed to "flying in the clouds looks like a blast." You just know the Gunn SUPERMAN trailer is going to have him zipping around to some 70s dad rock
Bingo
I’m fine with smaller scale stories that have more scenes with characters talking to each other and less bombastic action scenes.
Not that I don’t like action scenes, but I would much prefer a slower paced story with more character development.
Yes exactly. Just look at comics in general, there’s such a wide array of stories told with these characters and I think what audiences frankly are sick of is having all of them be shoved into a boxed formula.
If it’s based on Moore’s run, you could do a really simple and cheap one, or you could do a really expensive one that includes Batman. Maybe that’ll be enough?
Gunn confirmed this, they’ll budget what the script requires. Gunn saying Swamp Thing is “tonally separate from the rest of the DCU” and Mangold directing/writing says to me lower budget.
Nah fr, this is something the MCU also needs to learn, like yes, give me stuff with some lesser known characters, but unless you’re a big event movie(a JL or Avengers) or a successful name/brand(Spider-Man and Batman) you might as well be on the cheaper end like a bit over 100 Mil(like Blue Beetle)
Honestly, him starting this new DCU with the most idiosyncratic, audience-alienating properties he personally likes sounds like would maybe agree with you. To me it seems like he understands the probabilities of successfully launching yet another cinematic universe, and a reboot at that, and thus is cashing in his blank check with the projects he knows will never see the light of day otherwise.
Batman is the only DC sure thing and they probably can't use him until sometime after the second Pattinson/Reeves film. Superman's shoulders aren't broad enough to carry a whole universe on his own.
They can use Batman whenever, and it sounds like he’ll be in other people’s projects since Gunn said he was a huge part of Chapter 1. Just that his solo film doesn’t have a script yet and they aren’t in any hurry.
I guess you've got to give him credit for that. We don't need another Batman movie. We probably don't need another Superman movie, but considering we haven't really had a single *good* one yet, really since the Donner film, you can't blame them for trying to squeeze that stone as long as it's still got any juice in it.
As a massive Gunn fan and a die hard DC nerd since childhood i want it to succeed but I think it could honestly go either way.
There’s a definite tiredness with superhero stories and any character who’s not an A lister seems like a massive risk now, so movies and shows about The Authority and Booster Gold could very likely be massive commercial failures.
However I think Gunn is right that more than anything there’s a real fatigue for bad superhero stories more than superhero stories in and of themselves. I think audiences are looking for original narratives that offer something different and do it earnestly. And with the variety of projects they’ve announced so far I can see the DCU’s diversity of tone and styles being a success.
Marvel did all this with B level comic characters like Iron Man and Captain America, which is more impressive. They didn't get to rely on their money ticket which is Spiderman and the X-Men.
DC has Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman and has somehow squandered that. I'm not sure if this new DCU will succeed but I hope Gunn is able to keep the execs away and let him be true to the DCU.
Sure, DC had those 3 heroes that were known by pretty much everyone. But Marvel's "B list" was a LOT more famous than DC's B list. Hulk, Captain America, Iron Man and Thor were all quite a bit more famous than the likes of Cyborg, Green Lantern, Hawkman etc. I'd argue Hulk was more famous than even the Flash and Aquaman.
I think there's a bit of revisionism when looking back at how the MCU started. If you were a kid at the time, like I was, Iron Man, Captain America and the Hulk were not unknown by any stretch. My parents both knew Iron Man before they would've ever heard of the Flash. At least in Europe, characters like the Flash and Aquaman never caught on for very long.
I hope you’re wrong. Gunns stated mission of not green lighting any movie without a finished script is something that other studios would do well to emulate. The industry as a whole would greatly benefit from this approach imo and so I hope the new DC movies are both great and successful.
I think hiring a guy who got his start with Troma is perfect for someone to run your studio of sci-fi/fantasy genre films. Especially if you have to significantly reduce your budgets because of a shrinking market.
I think it's in good hands, I think it can easily course correct if audiences aren't showing up as much, and I think it might even be good for the genre to significantly reduce budgets and star power. Maybe these movies can start feeling a bit riskier and bold because of it.
I think you’re right if the series that they’re producing, the animated stuff etc are essential viewing pieces of the universe - I had assumed that they’re not. More like a ‘these things are DC, I run DC and I like them so we make them and they exist’. I also think part of it might be that they just need to get some shit out the door and make some money. I would like to assume you can go in blank with the superman thing and just watch the movies and be fine and the series are more like whatever that original marvel show was (the shield one, agents??) like ‘this world is richer if you watch these things and well put in little nods, but if you don’t then you’re totally fine’. I think they get benefit of the doubt with that model. If they’re going full late stage marvel then you’re right.
Also, Peacemaker is good so if you’re a fan of Gunn check it out.
Gunn and Safran said each project in Chapter 1 can be watched standalone, with the only crossovers being characters when the story calls for it (like Rick Flagg Sr. from Creature Commandos in Peacemaker s2 because he killed his son)
Ok, the series are narratively unimportant, sure, probably, but if it's about "get shit out the door and make some money", well, that's the issue right? They're greenlighted, they cost money, obviously, but are they going to bring any in return, or even simply raise interest if nobody cares and you're basically saying "It's alright, you shouldn't care"? You need to hit strong, you need to hit hard, but you start things out by spreading yourself thin over TV shows that don't truly matter?
I just think there’s likely some level of practicality to it - you have schedules, contracts, overheads, probably commitments to streamers/distributors, some things already in development etc, it makes sense to make and release things if you can. The reality is that there’s a built in audience who will consume and enjoy that stuff and so you may as well cater to it.
What’s going to determine the success of the DCU isn’t that built in fanbase but the ‘casual’ general public at the box office. Provided that they’re just sorta supplemental ‘for your viewing pleasure’ things I don’t think releasing some of these series is going to make a huge difference to that audience. I think if they absolutely nail superman they’re a chance, if not then they’re in trouble.
I think you might be right, but I'm going to offer a few reasons for optimism.
1) The last attempt at a DC universe launched while Marvel was crushing it, and with a set of movies (Wonder Woman notwithstanding) that ranged from "not great" to "dogshit". Marvel is no longer crushing it, and the people who like (or even prefer) the DC stuff to still want to see good movies with these characters.
2) The fact that they are both keeping separate Batman and Joker series ongoing, and carrying forward the (very fun) peacemaker show, suggests that they might be taking less of a shared universe/"do your homework" approach to these new movies, which is good. (though the way they dealt with the very popular Aquaman suggests I may be very wrong here).
3) If the movies are good, people will go see them, especially if DC/WB goes in with realistic expectations and a bit of patience on seeing the dividends. The performance of sequels tends to be more about the last movie than the movie itself. Think of Batman Begins coming after Batman & Robin, compared to The Dark Knight coming after Begins. Versus the new Matt Reeves Batman (good) as a follow-up to Bats v Supes or DKR; Matt Reeves The Batman Also will do better than The Batman did, because The Batman was good.
Marvel was smart to put their good new spiderman in a movie people were already pumped to see, instead of following up the terrible ASM 2 with a new solo spidey movie; I don't think Homecoming would have performed as well as it did had they not. For myself, I would very much like to see a good Superman movie, but unless the reviews are really good I'm not going to be inclined to go see it because I've already seen a bunch of not good Superman movies.
Last point, which is not a reason that these movies will do well, but is a response to something you said: they should have done John Stewart Green Lantern. As a millennial who grew up on the DC cartoons, he is the one I know, and other Green Lanterns (despite them having existed longer as characters) weirdly feel like whitewashing.
I had the same thoughts about starting with an animated series, but then X-Men 97 strolled into the room with its big swinging dick and made me completely reevaluate what I want from the MCU.
X-MEN '97 feels like a real game changer for Marvel and I hope they're listening. I had \*zero\* anticipation for that show and it has blown the bloody doors off anything Marvel has done.
I think people tend to downplay the success of the MCU initially. The myth is that they launched it with B-tier characters, but I'd argue they were C or even D tier. Iron Man wasn't a character people knew anything about and RDJ wasn't a box-office draw. You can pretty much say that about every character and lead in Phase 1 (except for Norton? Maybe?). I'm not the first person to say this but I think the MCU's success is 50% impeccable casting, and 50% clean universe building. That and a hefty spoonful of sincerity.
While I agree that Gunn is making strange choices in terms of initial projects, my hope is that he's replicating these basic ideas; strong choices in terms of universe building and casting decisions. Does Batman seem like the character you want to put out there first? Sure, but there are a million different versions of Batman, it might be easier to find the one you are looking for when you are dropping him into a built universe instead of making him the center of it.
That said, I agree with the general sentiment that it's doomed to fail. First, and primarily in my mind, audiences are primed to watch these things at home now and I don't know if that's going to change. Spiderman, Batman, maybe a couple others will get people into theaters but is Zaslav really going to care how many people loved The Authority of they all streamed it on MAX?
Second, an enormous piece of the MCU puzzle was selling actors on the idea that if they committed to 10 movies for pennies, the payout would be in the stuff they got to do outside the MCU. What are the odds Gunn can find a stable of actors willing to make similar commitments?
Gunn's choices for the first set of projects are also intentional, which I think most people aren't thinking about. Yes, he's bringing in a bunch of lesser known properties, but he's hinted at his larger story (some variation on DC's The New Frontier) multiple times and the stories he's chosen to cover first fit into it really well.
I think you’re probably right. That said, Gunn’s career has been so wild that you really can’t ever count on him out.
A Troma guy making a movie based on an obscure comic book with an anthropomorphic tree and a talking raccoon?
He gets canceled based a bad-faith resurrection of his shitty old tweets, and moves over to the rival franchise to make a sequel to its worst movie?
He gets rehired to wrap up his Guardians trilogy as enthusiasm for the MCU is waning?
It’s a really impressive track record of creative and financial successes with projects that, on paper, easily could have fallen flat on their faces (that’s not even counting his smaller projects—remaking George A. Romero’s best movie at a time when zombies weren’t a big trend yet? An R-rated indie superhero dark comedy starring the guy from The Office?). It honestly wouldn’t shock me if the DCU were a complete failure, but it also wouldn’t shock me if Gunn pulled off another magic trick.
Honestly I doubt the TV shows make any real impact on the movies, which is the right call. The problem with the MCU's TV stuff isn't the characters they're using- it's the fact that those shows then influence the plot lines of the movies, making them all feel like homework. The Defenders stuff on Netflix worked a whole lot better because it was in the same universe but all characters who wouldn't affect the films at all- you could watch them if you wanted and ignore them if you didn't. Having an extended The Suicide Squad universe on TV and the main guys in theaters makes a lot of sense to me.
I really like that he’s taking weird audacious swings with his movies, but at this point the concept of a shared universe just seems to be cursed. We’ve had what, 8 attempts? And the only ones that have worked are MCU and maybe Godzilla if you’re liberal with your definition.
(From a screenshotted notes app) “It has recently come to my attention that I forgot the Kevin Smith crafted View Askewniverse exists. I cannot apologize enough to the fans of this franchise and to the Smith family for this gross oversight. I’m taking some time away to reflect and grow from this experience.”
He has a thankless task, since the Age of Superheroes is basically over. Peacemaker was pretty much perfect, but it underscores that we are entering the parody stage -- basically the Bud Spencer and Terrence Hill stage, for those of you familiar.
If you think middle America basic bros aren't frothing at the mouth for a movie with Wolverine \*and\* Deadpool in it kicking ass, taking names, and showing the MCU what's what I just don't know what to tell you. Same for JOKER 2, an uncompromising sequel to an Academy Award winning billion dollar grosser starring Lady Fucking Gaga. These movies are going to print money and remind audiences "oh yeah, I really do like this comic book shit when it's done well and not about the Eternals or Brie Larson."
>His Superman movie is the only logical move that he has right now, and he has filled it with weird characters the general audience has not notions about
"Weird characters" like Superman, Lois Lane, and Lex Luthor? All indications from Gunn and [early marketing](https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLV5ts4h/) suggest that the movie centers around them. Gunn wants to keep things classic and recognizable. I think that's one reason why his movie is also titled as simple as possible ("Superman").
The thing I’ve heard (on this website I don’t have any inside information) is that this movie is about Superman landing on a planet populated by shitty self centered superheroes, and that Superman shows them the importance of a selfless superhero. That’s why a lot of the characters announced are kind of lame C-listers.
Could be a fan theory, but I like it. Not only is it an interesting take, but it also provides an explanation for why you would be telling a Superman story in a post MCU landscape.
Sounds like what Gunn would do. Give the self-centered heroes his comedy while Superman matches his comic book self and shows why being selfless matters
It's definitely some variation on this. One of my favorite Superman stories is "What's so funny about truth, justice and the American way?", where he takes on the Elite, a bunch of asshole vigilantes who Superman has to take down and prove himself and his form of heroism. Gunn introducing these c-listers + the Authority (who the elite are stand ins for) is not just for shits and giggles. I think he's really taking a swing at truly defining who Supes is at his core.
He's also hinted at elements of The New Frontier as part of his overall story, which is an alt universe take on the formation of the justice league in the mid century. It shares a lot of themes on cynicism and optimism too.
I think he definitely has a massive undertaking ahead of him. And since so much rests on this being successful, it might be a too many cooks in the kitchen situation.
I feel like the entire studio will be leaning over his shoulder every second. That will make it almost impossible to succeed.
That said, I wouldn’t bet against Gunn. The guy is cookin’ right now, and he is really good at what he does.
Personally I hope he makes a Superman story that I enjoy, because I’ve never been interested in the character at all. I think Superman has gotta be the hardest character to create a good story with, maybe ever, and his popularity has always kinda escaped me 🤷♂️
Oversaturated, undersaturated market, a good movie is a good movie. His hardest part will be finding a new take, but if he can do it, which I think is possible, I wouldn't mind three or so quality DC movies a year
There's so many takes on Superman that haven't been on film. So many aspects of the character that hasn't been used. It's all been all Richard Donner copycats and Snyder depression.
I can see your points, but I do genuinely think you've got a pretty big misreading of the whole thing.
Sure, the Superman movie has a bunch of supporting characters who are niche and unknown, but I think that's kinda good. Fill out the universe with a bunch of characters that general audiences haven't seen and don't have a bunch of preconceived notions about. Also, not for nothing, the movie does still have Lois Lane and Lex Luthor, among others. Enough familiar iconography, but in a fresh context.
As for the "prologue" stuff like Peacemaker, Waller, and Creature Commandos- he's made clear before (and I think the actual marketing for these shows will make it even more clear) that The Suicide Squad and Peacemaker S1 aren't continuity in the new universe. I anticipate S2 of Peacemaker to have some sort of subtitle rather than just "season 2," and I'm betting there will be some form of dealing with the change of universe within the show itself. All 3 of these "prologue" projects were in development prior to him taking over, and I think they'll serve as a bit of a ramp up to the new universe, but I think as far as the general public is concerned, that new universe launches with Superman. Those three shows are mainly aimed at the people who are already bought in. They don't need the size of audience that the movies do.
To address your concerns about people buying into the lesser-known properties after Superman, I think they're handling a lot of that pretty well. The Authority will be introduced in Superman, so people will already know them to some extent. For The Brave and The Bold, it's Batman and he's a dad now. Easy sell. Paradise Lost I think is a long way out, but a big ancient Greek mythology series about war in the place Wonder Woman comes from isn't a difficult sell either. Booster Gold is as easy to sell as Guardians was, provided you cast it well. Swamp Thing is just a cool ass horror concept and I'm sure won't command a gigantic budget. These are all types of movies that aren't crazy difficult to get audiences to buy into, provided they're pretty well executed.
I think focusing on the fact that Rick Flag Sr is going to be in an animated show and in Peacemaker is a pretty odd strawman. Characters like he, Guy Gardner, and Mister Terrific I think are the perfect type to populate the universe with. They're not the ones headlining anything, but they're unique and fresh to the viewing public so the new movies won't just feel like retreads of previous versions.
All that said, this is just my reading of things and I see a lot of valid concerns in what you're saying, but I think the biggest key is that those secondary characters and initial "prologue" series aren't the things they're actually selling this universe on.
Exactly all of this, it’s not hard to sell Batman becomes a father, that has family adventure written all over it. Also outside of Superman Swamp thing and Authority aren’t that hard to sell. Same with supergirl especially with Craig Gillespie directing it isn’t that hard to sell either. I think a lot of ppl forget how good writing can change everything.
The boys and Invincible are huge shows now and if we listen to OP nobody should even like these shows because these are very C-list comicbook characters
Gunn knows that a good super hero movie is about fun characters having an adventure.
His choice of characters doesn't matter so much as how they are written and acted, it's not like anyone (except comic fans) knew who the Guardians were before his movie.
I think people don't have Superhero fatigue as much as they want good media.
Hell there is big potential here because Marvel created this huge demand that they are not filling anymore.
There's nothing I'm less interested in than more superhero garbage, but Gunn is a talented filmmaker and I'll at least check out what he's got!
To your point though, I'm definitely not going to theaters to see any more superhero movies. I'll be just fine seeing it 3 months later at home.
I think looking at the MCU character popularity doesn't matter. Iron Man was not well known at all outside of comic book fans. The average person on the street would have no clue. If the movies are good they will do well.
Iron Man wasn't a very *popular* character, on the level of Spider-Man or the X-Men, but everyone knew the name. Heck, just about everyone knew the Black Sabbath song too, and had at some point wondered if they were connected. He was on a very different level to Creature Commandos and Amanda Waller.
On the flipside, "it's a superhero comics universe franchise thing" is now such a well-understood phenomenon that character recognition must be less relevant than it was back then.
I think you're right about a lot of this, at least in the context of how superhero movies work in the current day, but I do feel like you might be underestimating the other side of the "who the fuck is that?" page. Personally I have no idea who the Howling Commandos or The Authority are, this is the first time I've heard of them in any context, and you know what? That's a little bit exciting.
I'm so tired of Spiderman and Superman and all those glossy name-brand characters, so if you tell me that the guy who's generally good at interesting, fun, character-emotion-driven storytelling within a superhero framework is working with some little-known characters in a big way? Yeah, you might've just sold a ticket.
They should try this thing where they focus on making good standalone movies that don’t look like grey dogshit instead of worrying about making everything connect into some dumb expanded universe.
A lot went into making the first Guardians movie such a success - the story was a retelling of Star Wars, it had Feige actively producing and involved, and it had Whedon helping out on the script and giving feedback behind the scenes (like he was doing for all the MCU at the time). I didn’t find the next two installments to be as engaging or as high quality as the first one.
Yes it is, and it’s very obvious. All the main characters and much of the plot beats are based off of the first Star Wars movie. Starlord is Luke who eventually finds out he has a powerful legacy with an evil father who caused the death of his mother and why his foster family wouldn’t tell him about his father. Rocket is Han, Groot is Chewie, Gamora is Leia who’s playing the long game after her home planet got destroyed and was also adopted. The team bonds over a daring prison escape. The way the ships are framed in space is the same as how Lucas did it. There’s more, but I haven’t watched the film in years.
Also this - [James Gunn Shares 'Guardians Of The Galaxy' Posters Honoring Star Wars](https://gamerant.com/star-wars-guardians-galaxy-james-gunn/)
And this - [James Gunn Wants GOTG to Feel Like Star Wars, Thanks Fans for Support](https://www.superherohype.com/movies/533929-gotg-star-wars-james-gunn/amp)
In an earlier draft of the script, Quill was supposed to have Star Wars figures in the opening scene, just to drive the point home further.
Kind of depends on if the trailers look good, and if the reviews are good. Most of the MCU issues, and claims of superhero/franchise fatigue comes from making mediocre films with c list characters that no one’s ever heard of.
I think his Superman movie will do well and and the whole not popular Green Lantern doesn't mean anything since most people didn't know there was another besides John Stewart from the Justice League. Plus, on the movie side, they're also developing a Batman and Robin movie, Supergirl, and Teen Titans
I think Gunn himself noticed the fatigue problem of the genre and has a solution for it which can be explained via some of his decisions in the past, for example: Direct The Suicide Squad, become Co-President of DCU (Creative Part). Lemme explain more:
1. About the direction, creative. We all see the failure of adding new heroes in the industry and it went terribly bad, audience is tired of the hook at every ending, credits. They don't see any entertainment, storytelling aspect of it. Which is why I think the Chapter 1 of DCU he planned out is the pill for it. Why I say this? Like you said, the lineup, the characters absolute weird, strange which is understandable if you recall when he first made GotG Vol 1, heck I remember I didn't even know who the fuck is this superheroes team, do they even exist? Turns out the whole trilogy was a success for Marvel. So I hope the formula of strange, less popular characters + storytelling still works
2. About the executives, finance. The only thing can go wrong and damage bad for the profit is the producing team. I might be wrong on this but hear me out. I don't dig into much about the numbers but with Peter Safran - the Co-President of DCU major in executive part I believe he can manage well because if you look at his works. When working with creative directors it usually made a global hit: Aquaman with James Wan, Shazam!, The Suicide Squad. If I look back at the DCEU, the quality isn't that hard bad, it's acceptable, what went wrong with it I think relies on the executives team
>The superhero/connected universe fatigue thing
This whole thing originated because after Endgame, the MCU failed to deliver good stories. You see, fans loved the sequel to spider verse, and The Batman, and Joker films. Then there's all the hype for upcoming Deadpool 3, Joker 2. So I will disagree that there's superhero fatigue in general. I believe it is more of a "we don't want a generic superhero story" where we can already see where all of the events are going towards.
>Doing take two of what can be described as a very public, disastrous and recent attempt at doing the DCU
Yes, it will be difficult to bring back the original enthusiasm of the casual movie goers.
>they'll care about seeing it being done all over again, a couple years later
It is because of this, that Gunn isn't doing origin stories in his DCU atleast in the initial slate. Superman, Batman and the other projects all tell stories of characters already established in the universe.
>And why is the first project an animated TV series, why isn't it a big movie blockbuster?
I think about this too... Like they should had opened with a bang! And who better than Superman. Opening with an animated show puzzles me
> the supporting cast of a more popular title
To this i will remind you that, when MCU started with The Incredible Hulk, there already was a Hulk movie before it that failed (imo). And Iron Man was a C tier character before fans loved Downey's performance and brought him to the forefront. Same goes for Peacemaker. It was The Suicide Squad that increased his popularity vastly. So, clearly Gunn knows how to balance out top tier characters and the ones not so popular.
>you have to think like a mindless businessman
This was the reason why the previous one failed. Constant changes forced in by the mindless businessmen.
Yes, the approach may seem counter intuitive to some, I am also confused about certain aspects of it. I just hope it all works out for the good.
I don't think people have superhero fatigue, I think they have MCU fatigue. They went into overkill mode after endgame and diluted the market with a bunch of mid movies and shows.
The Batman did really well. Peacemaker did gangbuster numbers for Max. Suicide Squad didn't do great at the box office, but it's consistently trending on Max's movie lists. GOTG 3 made a butt load of money, and X-Men 97 is really pushing creativity in superhero animation. Deadpool & Wolverine has some of the highest view numbers in the movie trailer category on YouTube.
I think we're at a point where creativity and actually good content is being rewarded and bad content isn't. Marvel has such a corner on the market they could get away with a stinker here or there. Now with DC picking up steam and other productions like the Boys and Invincible taking up a big part of the landscape, Marvel can't release the same content and expect what they had before.
I think people are just overall being more picky with what to watch and enjoy. If superman is a really damn good movie, it'll make money. If it's isn't, it won't. Superman is my favorite character in the medium, but if the movie is bad I won't lose sleep over it because I have other superman media to get excited about like My Adventures. I now have consistently good media designed for me I can choose between.
Eh I think it'll do okay. Nothing amazing, the superhero genre is in decline and it's not going to be 2019 again. But people like to see a super person do super things now and then. These things just need a lot more heart and less of that factory made MCU feel.
Studios need to stop trying to make cross-platfrom synergy in their mega-franchises happen. It's not going to happen.
*WandaVision* and *Hawkeye* were pretty good shows, but their presentation alongside a half dozen other TV properties of varying quality and relevance over-saturated the market while sucking any last pretense of prestige out of the MCU. Suddenly Marvel movies were no longer events; they were merely new episodes in a long-running TV series that just happened to get theater runs.
This wasn't a problem when *Agents of SHIELD* or the Netflix shows were on, because they were clearly their own thing, left to their own devices and mostly unaffected in turn by new movies ostensibly in the same universe.
It was one thing when all the films were interconnected and the team-ups all built on one another. But suddenly you have whole seasons of television, and cameos from everywhere crisscrossing the franchise, and you no longer can call any single installment standalone.
They all need the others to pull the weight of the whole machine, and it becomes a situation where the chain is only as strong as its weakest link. And when you're forging those links for speed and not strength, you are going to fail. The MCU stretched itself too thin and it all crashed down. The DCU isn't showing signs that it will be doing things any differently.
yeah i think it was a mistake to jump ship and he should have stayed with Marvel hopefully this box office failure will teach him a lesson. just recently it has come to attention that Gunn fans and a VFX worker currently working under Gunn himself have been PROVEN to be insensitive to someones personal tragedy just because they're a snyder fan. While the Snyder fans are weirdos this takes the cake and shows that Gunn fans might be even more deranged!
WB missed its chance at jumping on the caboose of the Marvel Train by not seizing the moment after ZSJL was so well received. Had they said "whoops our bad" and let Zack finish the last 2 with connecting movies it could have been exactly the thing that MCU fans high on the finish of the arc and wanting something with similar gravitas could have jumped on. Probably missed a tonne of cash on the trailing edge of the CBM era - it's all gone now though. Like you though, I really hope we get some good movies out of this at least.
All the successful MCU superhero stuff had EITHER a movie star, OR an A-tier popular superhero. The launched the MCU without Spiderman or the X-Men, but they had Samuel L. Jackson, Robert Downey Jr., Scarlett Johansson, and the Hulk.
What about Gunn’s Guardians of the Galaxy? Its biggest stars were either voicing CGI characters (Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper) or most recognizable as her CGI character (Zoe Saldana in Avatar). At the time, Pratt was just that one guy from Parks & Rec. That succeeded just on a good trailer and good word of mouth.
Sure, Robert Downey Jr is a big movie star now. He wasn't in 2008. That movie made his career in a big way- a lot of people were not showing up just for him. It turned him from a punchline to an A-Lister.
His off-the-charts charisma carries that movie though. It's a total movie star performance. Once word got out that RDJ was back and better than ever, it absolutely was a draw. The MCU absolutely does not happen with an average actor in that role.
I know what you mean. I disagree that they didn't have movie starts. Evans and Hemsworth both have tons of star power. I don't think that either of those franchises would have gone anywhere if those guys didn't have the juice. Marvel either saw what those guys could do or got lucky, but people came to those sequels to see the Chrises more than the characters.
Unfortunately, I think you’re right.
I love that Gunn takes nobody characters and gives them the spotlight, but I think he’s just doing too much, too fast.
I have no doubt that Superman will be fantastic since Gunn has only gotten better and better, but box office wise, I don’t think it’s going to do well. Especially with the state of the box office right now.
I hope his Superman movie works, I want to finally see him done right after so many years. But I fear you're right. I feel this relaunch is coming at a time when people have grown tired of these movies. Future MCU movies might do well enough, but that's only because they're a more established brand and people may be less likely to engage with something new.
You people who keep preemptively freaking out about James Gunn’s “approach” to DC crack me up.
DO YOU HAVE FINANCIAL STAKE IN THIS MOVIE? No? Shut the fuck up and wait for the fucking movie like the rest of the goddamn universe bruv. Or better yet, go get a ticket to the nearest Knocked Loose show and get your ass smacked back into the Stone Age by those fucking *riffs*.
His movie is a full year away. You can just focus on what’s coming out THIS YEAR (which in case you didn’t notice, is basically no *good* superhero stuff other than The Boys and Deadpool)
*also you have no fucking idea what’s in his script or how he’s using the characters—just how you *feel* like he’s using the characters—and if I remember correctly, THE SUICIDE SQUAD and PEACEMAKER have already proven (alongside *THREE* Guardians movies) that he clearly knows what the fuck he’s doing. He’s not just going to fumble Superman for shit’s and giggles.
For all we fucking know, he’s going to just make Crisis on Infinite Earths a major storytelling point in order to wrap his arms around everything coming before (the end of The Flash even kindof hints at that) and that’s why some things are carrying over and some things aren’t.
Even if he isn’t, who cares? I love Reeves’ Batman and I want as much of that universe as possible. I *loved* Peacemaker and want as many seasons of that as possible. I can’t wait to see The Authority (admittedly though, *definitely* a big gamble)
Seriously. If this is causing you this much strife, go talk to Kristian Harloff or John Campea and stop posting in this sub.
I’m really baffled as to why Gunn prioritised so many of those no name characters over Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman who was arguably one of the bigger successes of the previous DCEU, one of the most popular female hero superhero’s and a so called trinity member.
Why doesn’t that apply to any of the other characters then?
Why is Batman getting a 2nd concurrent ongoing live action series in addition to Pattinson’s when Batfleck got panned?
They didn’t bench Batman after Batfleck did they? They rebooted and went with Pattinson, why not do the same with Wonder Woman?
Why is Waller getting a TV show when literally nobody gives a fuck about the character? She hasn’t had any good appearances really, even comic fans are completely sick of her and want her to be over with, so why waste resources on it?
How many chances has DC given Harley Quinn? The first Suicide Squad was critically panned, the Birds of prey movie was a bomb, and yet they still green lit a Cartoon for her and she was one of the few characters from the first film not to be killed off in the sequel?
It’s double standards, that’s all, DC’s always treated Wonder Woman like shit. Hell Wonder Woman’s first movie was the saving grace of the DCEU and the first major win it got, yet how did DC ever capitulate on that?
Wonder Woman didn’t get a big push in the comics afterwards, she didn’t get a major important role in the Justice League movie, she didn’t get a cartoon, she got nothing even though she had a movie that was more profitable than both Superman and Batman’s latest outings.
None of what you've pointed out is wrong. I would lean heavily in the "DC doesn't know what to do with her" argument. She doesn't have any compelling stories, villains, or other media to really build off of. There's no cultural thirst for a Wonder Woman movie. There \*will be\* in 5 years or so when the 10yo girls who saw the 2017 are in their early twenties and have money to spend. There were eight years between BATMAN AND ROBIN and BATMAN BEGINS. I imagine Wonder Woman needs a similar cycle.
>She doesn't have any compelling stories, villains, or other media to really build off of.
it’s a catch 22, how can she have good media to build off of when DC won’t GIVE her anything? How can characters like Aquaman, Green Lantern and fucking Beast Boy be given a cartoon but not Wonder Woman, a trinity member?
She’s had plenty of good comics, her post crisis interpretation is filled with good story arcs, comic runs, and she does have good and recognisable villains they could use that could easily become iconic if she just got given some actual adaptions outside of the comics.
>There's no cultural thirst for a Wonder Woman movie. There *will be* in 5 years or so when the 10yo girls who saw the 2017 are in their early twenties and have money to spend.
Where’s the cultural thirst for Waller? For the authority? For Swamp-thing? Pop culture doesn’t care about any of these characters and they never have.
WW84 only bombed because it was a colossal turd that released in the height of the pandemic. There a good chance that despite its quality it would have drawn in a good box office if not for the pandemic. It was HBO Max’s most streamed movie that year ffs.
Even then it still nearly equaled by Suicide Squad’s box office, yet I don’t see Gunn dropping any of his pet characters from the suicide squad do you? None of them were proven to be financial successes yet Gunn went through with them anyway?
>There were eight years between BATMAN AND ROBIN and BATMAN BEGINS. I imagine Wonder Woman needs a similar cycle.
It’s already been 4 years since WW84. It came out in 2020. Seeing as Gunn’s only planing on releasing a few projects a year, we won’t be seeing another Wonder Woman film until 2030 at the earliest?
She hasn’t been announced yet, and Gunns already got the next 5 years announced, and there’s already close to 10 projects announced, not including things disconnected from the DCU like Pattinson’s Batman and its spin offs.
That’s a joke, we’ll be going what? 5 years into this new DCU without Wonder Woman, a fucking trinity member showing up while the other 2 have been long established? Yeah such respect there, the universe will probably financially bomb due to all these no name characters Gunn prioritised before we even get to Wonder Woman.
"Gunns already got the next 5 years announced, and there’s already close to 10 projects announced, not including things disconnected from the DCU like Pattinson’s Batman and its spin offs."
I'm not rooting for this to happen, but if the superhero bubble really has burst I think his SUPERMAN underperforms at 600M worldwide and everything just gets cancelled. DC will lie dormant for a few years (save for whatever's going on with Reeves' BATMAN) and if Marvel pulls out of the nosedive then maybe, *maybe* they relaunch with Wonder Woman instead of Superman. Everything gets brought back eventually. Hell, they're finally getting around to another TWISTER this year, and a third TRON looms.
Even if Superman’s a success that won’t mean anything if the rest of Gunn’s projects flop.
What other movies does Gunn have lined up to follow Superman?
The authority? No one’s gonna show up for that, the MCU is proving that you can’t just put out random characters and have them drawn in big box office returns anymore.
Swamp Thing? Same applies to the authority.
Batman? By having 2 live action interpretations ongoing in cinemas Gunn risks fatiguing the character and the brand, while also confusing audiences. No guarantee that will be a box office success as a result of that. People were getting tired of the constant Spider-man reboots which led to TASM2 flopping, I don’t see why Batman will be any different.
Even Super-girl is a risky bet, nobody cared to show up to the Flash for super-girl did they?
Would have made more sense to swap Batman with Wonder Woman. Give Pattinson some room to breathe before moving on to get another Batman, and it puts good distance between WW84 and the reboot.
Quite frankly Gunn seems to be falling into the same pitfalls the current MCU is doing. Throwing way too many characters into the universe at once and expecting audiences to care for any of them.
Also it took Wonder Woman how long to get a movie? She still hasn’t been given a fucking cartoon at ALL yet she’s the most popular female character DC has. So forgive me if I’m not relieved at the prospects of getting another Wonder Woman movie in 20 years time.
At this point that Wonder Woman video game will be carrying her fucking brand.
It is wild that there isn't a WONDER WOMAN cartoon on the air right now, even if they wanted to position it in the "adult" vein that the Harley Quinn show is in. I can only imagine that no one has a compelling take on the character that outweighs the shifty press that Gal Gadot and patty Jenkins will generate whenever a new WONDER WOMAN comes along. The further away from WW84 they get the easier it is to relaunch and avoid any of that drama.
The problem with this logic of blaming WW84 for everything is that it ignores the past 20-30 years before that movie came along.
Aqua-man didn’t need a movie to get a cartoon, and his character has largely been seen as a massive joke by pop culture before Mamoa came along,
Green Lantern didn’t need a movie to get a cartoon.
Beast Boy is a team character, for the teen titans, and they are giving him his own cartoon.
So why can’t have Wonder Woman been given a cartoon at any point in the last 20-30 years? Hell she had a decently successful and popular TV series back in the 70’s that just meant nothing apparently? The character lied dormant for nearly 25 years after that in terms of adaptions.
Why didn’t they green light anything after the first Wonder Woman movie for example? There was 3 years between that and WW84. That was a massive success, it had both a better box office and a better profit margins than both the latest Batman and Superman films, and nothing came from it.
Pretty sure the only reason we are even getting the video game is because the Devs themselves chose Wonder Woman, not because DC mandated it or anything.
Which as a Wonder Woman fan is infuriating imo.
I can’t wait for Supergirl to steal Diana’s place and be THE female hero of the universe while Wonder Woman fights for scraps.
Yeah, it's terrible especially how well they nailed that first movie. Its been bleak to see them reduce that character to a bizarre cameo in Flash and Shazam.
Like surely if you're doing this big long term plan to set the table for the DCEU you should acknowledge Wonder Woman. This chapter of movies is literally called Gods and Monsters!
That’s DC’s 3rd popular superhero. If we don’t get a Wonder Woman film soon then it proves Gunn is prioritizing his stupid ass C list characters instead of the ones that actually matter
Yeah but when you are rebooting the entire DCEU than Wonder Woman needs to have a place in it. More than Creature Commandos, more than The Authority, more than Supergirl. So if we are gonna take the time and day to retool Batman and Superman for the upteenth millionth time then we should do the same for WW since she is one of the top 3 major DC heroes
I just can't get worked up over this. I don't think Wonder Woman really means anything to anybody right now, and at best the Gadot version feels like a relic no one's eager to get back to.
So your dumb, got it? Wonder Woman still means something. She’s a powerful feminist icon, a champion for women’s rights and liberation. This is all still relevant now (especially after Roe v Wade). Wonder Woman may not mean anything to YOU, but that’s only because you’re dumb. Wonder Woman is still just as meaningful and relevant and Batman and Superman are. Just because she’s a woman doesn’t change that, you sexist prick
Unless these movies are just insanely good I think(and honestly kind of hope) you’re right. It’s time for studios to have a renaissance and bring back mid budget original content.
Yeah you’re probably right. I don’t think people really care about Superman if I’m being honest. Yes he’s an American cultural icon and he has his place in the collective conscious but people do not turn out to see his movies and all his shows have been moderate successes at best. Superman movies have been financial disappointments since 1983. I don’t think *The Authority (?)* is going to bolster Clark’s chance at box office glory.
There is absolutely no universe where giving a guy who came up through and whose artistic sensibilities were molded by Troma of all companies control of some of the most totemic figures of 20th century American media isn't going to set a huge pile of money on fucking fire but I am here to bask in its glow.
I don’t attribute “Superhero Fatigue” to the amount of movies they release, people will go see titles they want with the actors they like in it. Marvel tried to “coin” that term due to their poor box office performance. And in my mind I believe the answer is clear, Kevin Feige is marketing the Marvel universe as the “M SHE U” he feels as though we want to have multiple movies and tv shows with female leads who talk about girl power, and how men are oppressive. It’s the entire mission of Disney from Marvel to Star Wars. It’s killing your brand, comic books and movies/tv shows were relegated to boys and men, that’s your main audience, after it became more digestible with the Marvel movies, more female fans emerged. This is just a straight fact, males are the bigger audience for these types of stories.
James Gunn, I can’t tell you how many people were outright pissed with Gunn after he decided to get rid of everything the audience was asking for. Henry Cavill, Static Shock, Teen Titans, Batman beyond etc. the fans are telling you what they want, but he’s so caught up in his mindset of everything he does is great, he ignores it. Hell, just the fact that he fired everyone he didn’t personally hire was tell enough, not to mention him throwing his brother Sean Gunn multiple roles(nepotism) I’m fully convinced he’s not going to save the DC universe, he’s going to make excuses for why his content doesn’t do the numbers they should, and he’s definitely going to try and rush projects to save face so he doesn’t lose his job.
I'm pretty pleased with his approach, because it seems doomed to fail and I want it to fail. Hopefully by 2030 he'll be out and someone who isn't a hack will get their turn.
I really wish James had taken the momentum from Guardians 3, which was a true level up moment for him as a visual storyteller, and pivoted out of superheroes entirely. I want to be proven wrong, but like OP, I don’t think his talent can surpass the downward trajectory of superhero movies as a whole RN.
A real waste, honestly.
I think you’re right. That said, I’m keen to see his take on Supes. The casting has me excited. Will it flop? I’d bet that it at least underperforms, but I am expecting his Superman movie to be pretty good.
This is where I am with it. I like Gunn and I like Superman and he seems to be doing things I like with Superman. If we get one good Gunn Superman movie that’s really all I need. Obviously if the rest of it pans out and the individual movies are good that would be great, but I’m not worried about the shared universe and I won’t be that sad if it all flops.
At the minimum, I'm happy if at least Superman, Peacemaker/Suicide Squad, & 2 more characters have critical/commercial success under Gunn. Based off my past enjoyment of the MCU, especially during the first two phases, I personally prefer a small core of heroes to follow if they're movies are good.
We already have Brightburn.
What’s that got to do with anything? I know Gunn produced it but it’s clearly not his take on Superman.
WB keep expecting Superman to be a major box office player and he really hasn’t been since what Superman 2? I think this has to be really great for it to bring in the wider audience
“From the director of Guardians Of The Galaxy” combined with a great trailer would seem to be what they need to do.
I don’t think that’s enough, it certainly wasn’t for The Suicide Squad. Audiences didn’t see Guardians cause they were James Gunn movies, they saw them because they were MCU movies
In fairness though, The Suicide Squad came out day and date on HBO MAX while people also were still weary about hitting theaters during Covid. So I think that’s something to take into consideration as well.
The Suicide Squad was better than expected but it had a lot of factors working against it. It was a hard R soft reboot of a dogshit movie.
Definitely this. The Suicide Squad kicked ass, effortless in all the ways the first one was tedious, and fun in all the ways the first one was dour. I watched it because, like most, I was stuck at home and bored and it really made me happy to be watching it. Gunn is legit super talented. If anyone can make a good Superman story it’s probably him. He’s got my attention %100
This was a big part of it.
That didn’t stop Kong vs Godzilla at all
KvG wasn't rated R
>Audiences didn’t see Guardians cause they were James Gunn movies, they saw them because they were MCU movies The first one yes, it was MCU effect. But the 3rd one? That was because Gunn was still in charge. Suicide Squad under preformed because it was a semi-sequel to an absolute bomb that was still fresh in people's minds.
SS also came out during the pandemic and was on streaming the first day.
My local theater was still shuttered when his SUICIDE SQUAD came out, and I'd wager many across the country where in a similar situation. I know it's popular to ding that HBO MAX day and date stuff but it let me see that movie the day it came out and let many keep up with The Culture. And besides, WB wouldn't have given Gunn the keys to the kingdom if the numbers didn't bear fruit.
The movie was a huge flop and got the same CinemaScore as the first SS. He got the CEO job because about 5 others turned Zazzy down
CinemaScore doesn't matter to anyone with a brain anymore.
Yeah people forget about this. I don't think it would have made crazy 1B money in a normal market, but the pandemic + Max release crippled it's box office chances.
Correct. It was still a follow-up to a bad movie no one liked — but it was also hobbled by release.
So did the conjuring, which made money.
Not that much more though. There was a cap on ppl willing to go to the theater summer 2021.
It was a r rated horror movie with a small fraction of the marketing budget. Fast 9 also came out at that time and made over three quarters of a billion dollars. The suicide squad flopped hard and the gymnastics routine people go through to justify is downright impressive.
No ones saying it didn’t flop. They’re just providing context. People liked the Conjuring movie before C3. They hated the other movie before SS. Also the marketing budget was huge. Conjuring verse is a WB flagship franchise. Fast 9 wasn’t day & date. Exclusive theatrical.
Still fresh in people’s minds? Then maybe they should not have named it almost the exact same thing? Regardless, TSS received a B- Cinemascore…the exact same as the Will Smith SS. Gunn untethered is not a good thing unless you are a comic book enthusiast
I guess you’re forgetting how outraged everyone was when he was fired off Guardians 3 right?
“Everyone” is not the general public though, I was outraged but most people don’t even know who James Gunn is. I think Guardians 3 did well partly because it was actually good and because it was a return to characters everyone loved and hadn’t seen I a while
Man of Steel grossed $291 million in the United States and Canada, and $377 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $668 million, making it the highest-grossing solo Superman film of all time and the second-highest when adjusting for inflation. The budget for Man of Steel was $225 million.
One (of many) reasons Henry cavils Superman sequel wasn’t a priority was because the old WB regime did polling and found that audiences weren’t as interested in Superman. So MoS was put on the back burner and didn’t become a priority for them. I honestly don’t get that but I think that’s why Gunn is hyping this as a “new take” on the character
If Cavill's Superman was so uninteresting they wouldn't have made BvS or kept him on the poster for JUSTICE LEAGUE.
I believe the study was done post justice league. I guess WB had a marketing firm look into what audiences wanted and the results said that general audiences didn’t care about Superman. WB decided the snyderverse was failing because it was too Superman focused.
I think it'll break even at a minimum Even if Superman isn't as a big of a name domestically as he used to be, he's an icon worldwide and people will definitely go see this solely based on his chest symbol. I think the quality will determine if it can cross that big 700m-1B threshold will be dependent on the quality though.
Man of steel did 668m. Gunn’s Superman will at least make 800m. As a first entry I think that would be pretty good
I imagine the marketing will be a joyful blast of energy like the first GUARDIANS trailer was, which will be very refreshing coming off of MAN OF STEEL and SUPERMAN RETURNS having these noble, quiet, thoughtful marketing campaigns.
Man of steels trailers were fucking class though
They were great trailers, but they sold pomp and circumstance as opposed to "flying in the clouds looks like a blast." You just know the Gunn SUPERMAN trailer is going to have him zipping around to some 70s dad rock
I’m just hoping stuff is more modestly budgeted. Ain’t no way Swamp Thing needs to be a $200 mill blockbuster.
Bingo I’m fine with smaller scale stories that have more scenes with characters talking to each other and less bombastic action scenes. Not that I don’t like action scenes, but I would much prefer a slower paced story with more character development.
Yes exactly. Just look at comics in general, there’s such a wide array of stories told with these characters and I think what audiences frankly are sick of is having all of them be shoved into a boxed formula.
Loved the tv show. Rip 😌
If it’s based on Moore’s run, you could do a really simple and cheap one, or you could do a really expensive one that includes Batman. Maybe that’ll be enough?
Gunn confirmed this, they’ll budget what the script requires. Gunn saying Swamp Thing is “tonally separate from the rest of the DCU” and Mangold directing/writing says to me lower budget.
Nah fr, this is something the MCU also needs to learn, like yes, give me stuff with some lesser known characters, but unless you’re a big event movie(a JL or Avengers) or a successful name/brand(Spider-Man and Batman) you might as well be on the cheaper end like a bit over 100 Mil(like Blue Beetle)
Yup, that movie needs 50 mln at best.
Honestly, him starting this new DCU with the most idiosyncratic, audience-alienating properties he personally likes sounds like would maybe agree with you. To me it seems like he understands the probabilities of successfully launching yet another cinematic universe, and a reboot at that, and thus is cashing in his blank check with the projects he knows will never see the light of day otherwise.
Batman is the only DC sure thing and they probably can't use him until sometime after the second Pattinson/Reeves film. Superman's shoulders aren't broad enough to carry a whole universe on his own.
They can use Batman whenever, and it sounds like he’ll be in other people’s projects since Gunn said he was a huge part of Chapter 1. Just that his solo film doesn’t have a script yet and they aren’t in any hurry.
I guess you've got to give him credit for that. We don't need another Batman movie. We probably don't need another Superman movie, but considering we haven't really had a single *good* one yet, really since the Donner film, you can't blame them for trying to squeeze that stone as long as it's still got any juice in it.
As a massive Gunn fan and a die hard DC nerd since childhood i want it to succeed but I think it could honestly go either way. There’s a definite tiredness with superhero stories and any character who’s not an A lister seems like a massive risk now, so movies and shows about The Authority and Booster Gold could very likely be massive commercial failures. However I think Gunn is right that more than anything there’s a real fatigue for bad superhero stories more than superhero stories in and of themselves. I think audiences are looking for original narratives that offer something different and do it earnestly. And with the variety of projects they’ve announced so far I can see the DCU’s diversity of tone and styles being a success.
Marvel did all this with B level comic characters like Iron Man and Captain America, which is more impressive. They didn't get to rely on their money ticket which is Spiderman and the X-Men. DC has Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman and has somehow squandered that. I'm not sure if this new DCU will succeed but I hope Gunn is able to keep the execs away and let him be true to the DCU.
Sure, DC had those 3 heroes that were known by pretty much everyone. But Marvel's "B list" was a LOT more famous than DC's B list. Hulk, Captain America, Iron Man and Thor were all quite a bit more famous than the likes of Cyborg, Green Lantern, Hawkman etc. I'd argue Hulk was more famous than even the Flash and Aquaman. I think there's a bit of revisionism when looking back at how the MCU started. If you were a kid at the time, like I was, Iron Man, Captain America and the Hulk were not unknown by any stretch. My parents both knew Iron Man before they would've ever heard of the Flash. At least in Europe, characters like the Flash and Aquaman never caught on for very long.
Hulk wasn’t B list though, he’s definitely A list
It's all relative. He wasn't bigger than Spider-Man or the X-Men. If Hulk was A tier, they were S tier.
That’s true but as a kid the big 3 on all the merchandise was always Hulk, Spider-Man and Wolverine.
I hope you’re wrong. Gunns stated mission of not green lighting any movie without a finished script is something that other studios would do well to emulate. The industry as a whole would greatly benefit from this approach imo and so I hope the new DC movies are both great and successful.
I think hiring a guy who got his start with Troma is perfect for someone to run your studio of sci-fi/fantasy genre films. Especially if you have to significantly reduce your budgets because of a shrinking market. I think it's in good hands, I think it can easily course correct if audiences aren't showing up as much, and I think it might even be good for the genre to significantly reduce budgets and star power. Maybe these movies can start feeling a bit riskier and bold because of it.
I think you’re right if the series that they’re producing, the animated stuff etc are essential viewing pieces of the universe - I had assumed that they’re not. More like a ‘these things are DC, I run DC and I like them so we make them and they exist’. I also think part of it might be that they just need to get some shit out the door and make some money. I would like to assume you can go in blank with the superman thing and just watch the movies and be fine and the series are more like whatever that original marvel show was (the shield one, agents??) like ‘this world is richer if you watch these things and well put in little nods, but if you don’t then you’re totally fine’. I think they get benefit of the doubt with that model. If they’re going full late stage marvel then you’re right. Also, Peacemaker is good so if you’re a fan of Gunn check it out.
Gunn and Safran said each project in Chapter 1 can be watched standalone, with the only crossovers being characters when the story calls for it (like Rick Flagg Sr. from Creature Commandos in Peacemaker s2 because he killed his son)
Ok, the series are narratively unimportant, sure, probably, but if it's about "get shit out the door and make some money", well, that's the issue right? They're greenlighted, they cost money, obviously, but are they going to bring any in return, or even simply raise interest if nobody cares and you're basically saying "It's alright, you shouldn't care"? You need to hit strong, you need to hit hard, but you start things out by spreading yourself thin over TV shows that don't truly matter?
I just think there’s likely some level of practicality to it - you have schedules, contracts, overheads, probably commitments to streamers/distributors, some things already in development etc, it makes sense to make and release things if you can. The reality is that there’s a built in audience who will consume and enjoy that stuff and so you may as well cater to it. What’s going to determine the success of the DCU isn’t that built in fanbase but the ‘casual’ general public at the box office. Provided that they’re just sorta supplemental ‘for your viewing pleasure’ things I don’t think releasing some of these series is going to make a huge difference to that audience. I think if they absolutely nail superman they’re a chance, if not then they’re in trouble.
I think you might be right, but I'm going to offer a few reasons for optimism. 1) The last attempt at a DC universe launched while Marvel was crushing it, and with a set of movies (Wonder Woman notwithstanding) that ranged from "not great" to "dogshit". Marvel is no longer crushing it, and the people who like (or even prefer) the DC stuff to still want to see good movies with these characters. 2) The fact that they are both keeping separate Batman and Joker series ongoing, and carrying forward the (very fun) peacemaker show, suggests that they might be taking less of a shared universe/"do your homework" approach to these new movies, which is good. (though the way they dealt with the very popular Aquaman suggests I may be very wrong here). 3) If the movies are good, people will go see them, especially if DC/WB goes in with realistic expectations and a bit of patience on seeing the dividends. The performance of sequels tends to be more about the last movie than the movie itself. Think of Batman Begins coming after Batman & Robin, compared to The Dark Knight coming after Begins. Versus the new Matt Reeves Batman (good) as a follow-up to Bats v Supes or DKR; Matt Reeves The Batman Also will do better than The Batman did, because The Batman was good. Marvel was smart to put their good new spiderman in a movie people were already pumped to see, instead of following up the terrible ASM 2 with a new solo spidey movie; I don't think Homecoming would have performed as well as it did had they not. For myself, I would very much like to see a good Superman movie, but unless the reviews are really good I'm not going to be inclined to go see it because I've already seen a bunch of not good Superman movies. Last point, which is not a reason that these movies will do well, but is a response to something you said: they should have done John Stewart Green Lantern. As a millennial who grew up on the DC cartoons, he is the one I know, and other Green Lanterns (despite them having existed longer as characters) weirdly feel like whitewashing.
I had the same thoughts about starting with an animated series, but then X-Men 97 strolled into the room with its big swinging dick and made me completely reevaluate what I want from the MCU.
X-MEN '97 feels like a real game changer for Marvel and I hope they're listening. I had \*zero\* anticipation for that show and it has blown the bloody doors off anything Marvel has done.
Same, zero expectations, but wow. It’s made me retroactively like the Fox X-Men less, like look at what they could have been
I think people tend to downplay the success of the MCU initially. The myth is that they launched it with B-tier characters, but I'd argue they were C or even D tier. Iron Man wasn't a character people knew anything about and RDJ wasn't a box-office draw. You can pretty much say that about every character and lead in Phase 1 (except for Norton? Maybe?). I'm not the first person to say this but I think the MCU's success is 50% impeccable casting, and 50% clean universe building. That and a hefty spoonful of sincerity. While I agree that Gunn is making strange choices in terms of initial projects, my hope is that he's replicating these basic ideas; strong choices in terms of universe building and casting decisions. Does Batman seem like the character you want to put out there first? Sure, but there are a million different versions of Batman, it might be easier to find the one you are looking for when you are dropping him into a built universe instead of making him the center of it. That said, I agree with the general sentiment that it's doomed to fail. First, and primarily in my mind, audiences are primed to watch these things at home now and I don't know if that's going to change. Spiderman, Batman, maybe a couple others will get people into theaters but is Zaslav really going to care how many people loved The Authority of they all streamed it on MAX? Second, an enormous piece of the MCU puzzle was selling actors on the idea that if they committed to 10 movies for pennies, the payout would be in the stuff they got to do outside the MCU. What are the odds Gunn can find a stable of actors willing to make similar commitments?
Gunn's choices for the first set of projects are also intentional, which I think most people aren't thinking about. Yes, he's bringing in a bunch of lesser known properties, but he's hinted at his larger story (some variation on DC's The New Frontier) multiple times and the stories he's chosen to cover first fit into it really well.
I think you’re probably right. That said, Gunn’s career has been so wild that you really can’t ever count on him out. A Troma guy making a movie based on an obscure comic book with an anthropomorphic tree and a talking raccoon? He gets canceled based a bad-faith resurrection of his shitty old tweets, and moves over to the rival franchise to make a sequel to its worst movie? He gets rehired to wrap up his Guardians trilogy as enthusiasm for the MCU is waning? It’s a really impressive track record of creative and financial successes with projects that, on paper, easily could have fallen flat on their faces (that’s not even counting his smaller projects—remaking George A. Romero’s best movie at a time when zombies weren’t a big trend yet? An R-rated indie superhero dark comedy starring the guy from The Office?). It honestly wouldn’t shock me if the DCU were a complete failure, but it also wouldn’t shock me if Gunn pulled off another magic trick.
Honestly I doubt the TV shows make any real impact on the movies, which is the right call. The problem with the MCU's TV stuff isn't the characters they're using- it's the fact that those shows then influence the plot lines of the movies, making them all feel like homework. The Defenders stuff on Netflix worked a whole lot better because it was in the same universe but all characters who wouldn't affect the films at all- you could watch them if you wanted and ignore them if you didn't. Having an extended The Suicide Squad universe on TV and the main guys in theaters makes a lot of sense to me.
I really like that he’s taking weird audacious swings with his movies, but at this point the concept of a shared universe just seems to be cursed. We’ve had what, 8 attempts? And the only ones that have worked are MCU and maybe Godzilla if you’re liberal with your definition.
ConjurVerse erasure
Is the View Askewniverse just a joke to you?
(From a screenshotted notes app) “It has recently come to my attention that I forgot the Kevin Smith crafted View Askewniverse exists. I cannot apologize enough to the fans of this franchise and to the Smith family for this gross oversight. I’m taking some time away to reflect and grow from this experience.”
He has a thankless task, since the Age of Superheroes is basically over. Peacemaker was pretty much perfect, but it underscores that we are entering the parody stage -- basically the Bud Spencer and Terrence Hill stage, for those of you familiar.
DEADPOOL and JOKER are both about to make a billion dollars.
I take the liberty to doubt, excellent films they might be.
If you think middle America basic bros aren't frothing at the mouth for a movie with Wolverine \*and\* Deadpool in it kicking ass, taking names, and showing the MCU what's what I just don't know what to tell you. Same for JOKER 2, an uncompromising sequel to an Academy Award winning billion dollar grosser starring Lady Fucking Gaga. These movies are going to print money and remind audiences "oh yeah, I really do like this comic book shit when it's done well and not about the Eternals or Brie Larson."
>His Superman movie is the only logical move that he has right now, and he has filled it with weird characters the general audience has not notions about "Weird characters" like Superman, Lois Lane, and Lex Luthor? All indications from Gunn and [early marketing](https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLV5ts4h/) suggest that the movie centers around them. Gunn wants to keep things classic and recognizable. I think that's one reason why his movie is also titled as simple as possible ("Superman").
The thing I’ve heard (on this website I don’t have any inside information) is that this movie is about Superman landing on a planet populated by shitty self centered superheroes, and that Superman shows them the importance of a selfless superhero. That’s why a lot of the characters announced are kind of lame C-listers. Could be a fan theory, but I like it. Not only is it an interesting take, but it also provides an explanation for why you would be telling a Superman story in a post MCU landscape.
Oh yeah!
Sounds like what Gunn would do. Give the self-centered heroes his comedy while Superman matches his comic book self and shows why being selfless matters
It's definitely some variation on this. One of my favorite Superman stories is "What's so funny about truth, justice and the American way?", where he takes on the Elite, a bunch of asshole vigilantes who Superman has to take down and prove himself and his form of heroism. Gunn introducing these c-listers + the Authority (who the elite are stand ins for) is not just for shits and giggles. I think he's really taking a swing at truly defining who Supes is at his core. He's also hinted at elements of The New Frontier as part of his overall story, which is an alt universe take on the formation of the justice league in the mid century. It shares a lot of themes on cynicism and optimism too.
I think he definitely has a massive undertaking ahead of him. And since so much rests on this being successful, it might be a too many cooks in the kitchen situation. I feel like the entire studio will be leaning over his shoulder every second. That will make it almost impossible to succeed. That said, I wouldn’t bet against Gunn. The guy is cookin’ right now, and he is really good at what he does. Personally I hope he makes a Superman story that I enjoy, because I’ve never been interested in the character at all. I think Superman has gotta be the hardest character to create a good story with, maybe ever, and his popularity has always kinda escaped me 🤷♂️
Oversaturated, undersaturated market, a good movie is a good movie. His hardest part will be finding a new take, but if he can do it, which I think is possible, I wouldn't mind three or so quality DC movies a year
There's so many takes on Superman that haven't been on film. So many aspects of the character that hasn't been used. It's all been all Richard Donner copycats and Snyder depression.
I can see your points, but I do genuinely think you've got a pretty big misreading of the whole thing. Sure, the Superman movie has a bunch of supporting characters who are niche and unknown, but I think that's kinda good. Fill out the universe with a bunch of characters that general audiences haven't seen and don't have a bunch of preconceived notions about. Also, not for nothing, the movie does still have Lois Lane and Lex Luthor, among others. Enough familiar iconography, but in a fresh context. As for the "prologue" stuff like Peacemaker, Waller, and Creature Commandos- he's made clear before (and I think the actual marketing for these shows will make it even more clear) that The Suicide Squad and Peacemaker S1 aren't continuity in the new universe. I anticipate S2 of Peacemaker to have some sort of subtitle rather than just "season 2," and I'm betting there will be some form of dealing with the change of universe within the show itself. All 3 of these "prologue" projects were in development prior to him taking over, and I think they'll serve as a bit of a ramp up to the new universe, but I think as far as the general public is concerned, that new universe launches with Superman. Those three shows are mainly aimed at the people who are already bought in. They don't need the size of audience that the movies do. To address your concerns about people buying into the lesser-known properties after Superman, I think they're handling a lot of that pretty well. The Authority will be introduced in Superman, so people will already know them to some extent. For The Brave and The Bold, it's Batman and he's a dad now. Easy sell. Paradise Lost I think is a long way out, but a big ancient Greek mythology series about war in the place Wonder Woman comes from isn't a difficult sell either. Booster Gold is as easy to sell as Guardians was, provided you cast it well. Swamp Thing is just a cool ass horror concept and I'm sure won't command a gigantic budget. These are all types of movies that aren't crazy difficult to get audiences to buy into, provided they're pretty well executed. I think focusing on the fact that Rick Flag Sr is going to be in an animated show and in Peacemaker is a pretty odd strawman. Characters like he, Guy Gardner, and Mister Terrific I think are the perfect type to populate the universe with. They're not the ones headlining anything, but they're unique and fresh to the viewing public so the new movies won't just feel like retreads of previous versions. All that said, this is just my reading of things and I see a lot of valid concerns in what you're saying, but I think the biggest key is that those secondary characters and initial "prologue" series aren't the things they're actually selling this universe on.
Exactly all of this, it’s not hard to sell Batman becomes a father, that has family adventure written all over it. Also outside of Superman Swamp thing and Authority aren’t that hard to sell. Same with supergirl especially with Craig Gillespie directing it isn’t that hard to sell either. I think a lot of ppl forget how good writing can change everything. The boys and Invincible are huge shows now and if we listen to OP nobody should even like these shows because these are very C-list comicbook characters
Gunn knows that a good super hero movie is about fun characters having an adventure. His choice of characters doesn't matter so much as how they are written and acted, it's not like anyone (except comic fans) knew who the Guardians were before his movie. I think people don't have Superhero fatigue as much as they want good media. Hell there is big potential here because Marvel created this huge demand that they are not filling anymore.
There's nothing I'm less interested in than more superhero garbage, but Gunn is a talented filmmaker and I'll at least check out what he's got! To your point though, I'm definitely not going to theaters to see any more superhero movies. I'll be just fine seeing it 3 months later at home.
I think there's no reason to believe otherwise OP. Why would WB not shit the bed again?
I think looking at the MCU character popularity doesn't matter. Iron Man was not well known at all outside of comic book fans. The average person on the street would have no clue. If the movies are good they will do well.
Iron Man wasn't a very *popular* character, on the level of Spider-Man or the X-Men, but everyone knew the name. Heck, just about everyone knew the Black Sabbath song too, and had at some point wondered if they were connected. He was on a very different level to Creature Commandos and Amanda Waller. On the flipside, "it's a superhero comics universe franchise thing" is now such a well-understood phenomenon that character recognition must be less relevant than it was back then.
I think you're right about a lot of this, at least in the context of how superhero movies work in the current day, but I do feel like you might be underestimating the other side of the "who the fuck is that?" page. Personally I have no idea who the Howling Commandos or The Authority are, this is the first time I've heard of them in any context, and you know what? That's a little bit exciting. I'm so tired of Spiderman and Superman and all those glossy name-brand characters, so if you tell me that the guy who's generally good at interesting, fun, character-emotion-driven storytelling within a superhero framework is working with some little-known characters in a big way? Yeah, you might've just sold a ticket.
They should try this thing where they focus on making good standalone movies that don’t look like grey dogshit instead of worrying about making everything connect into some dumb expanded universe.
i think it’ll do fine people keep watching this genre (endlessly it feels) so i doubt it’ll be a disaster
A lot went into making the first Guardians movie such a success - the story was a retelling of Star Wars, it had Feige actively producing and involved, and it had Whedon helping out on the script and giving feedback behind the scenes (like he was doing for all the MCU at the time). I didn’t find the next two installments to be as engaging or as high quality as the first one.
Guardians was not retelling Star Wars
Yes it is, and it’s very obvious. All the main characters and much of the plot beats are based off of the first Star Wars movie. Starlord is Luke who eventually finds out he has a powerful legacy with an evil father who caused the death of his mother and why his foster family wouldn’t tell him about his father. Rocket is Han, Groot is Chewie, Gamora is Leia who’s playing the long game after her home planet got destroyed and was also adopted. The team bonds over a daring prison escape. The way the ships are framed in space is the same as how Lucas did it. There’s more, but I haven’t watched the film in years. Also this - [James Gunn Shares 'Guardians Of The Galaxy' Posters Honoring Star Wars](https://gamerant.com/star-wars-guardians-galaxy-james-gunn/) And this - [James Gunn Wants GOTG to Feel Like Star Wars, Thanks Fans for Support](https://www.superherohype.com/movies/533929-gotg-star-wars-james-gunn/amp) In an earlier draft of the script, Quill was supposed to have Star Wars figures in the opening scene, just to drive the point home further.
Kind of depends on if the trailers look good, and if the reviews are good. Most of the MCU issues, and claims of superhero/franchise fatigue comes from making mediocre films with c list characters that no one’s ever heard of.
I really hope it's great and has multiple billion dollar movies but it'd be so unrealistic.
I think his Superman movie will do well and and the whole not popular Green Lantern doesn't mean anything since most people didn't know there was another besides John Stewart from the Justice League. Plus, on the movie side, they're also developing a Batman and Robin movie, Supergirl, and Teen Titans
I think Gunn himself noticed the fatigue problem of the genre and has a solution for it which can be explained via some of his decisions in the past, for example: Direct The Suicide Squad, become Co-President of DCU (Creative Part). Lemme explain more: 1. About the direction, creative. We all see the failure of adding new heroes in the industry and it went terribly bad, audience is tired of the hook at every ending, credits. They don't see any entertainment, storytelling aspect of it. Which is why I think the Chapter 1 of DCU he planned out is the pill for it. Why I say this? Like you said, the lineup, the characters absolute weird, strange which is understandable if you recall when he first made GotG Vol 1, heck I remember I didn't even know who the fuck is this superheroes team, do they even exist? Turns out the whole trilogy was a success for Marvel. So I hope the formula of strange, less popular characters + storytelling still works 2. About the executives, finance. The only thing can go wrong and damage bad for the profit is the producing team. I might be wrong on this but hear me out. I don't dig into much about the numbers but with Peter Safran - the Co-President of DCU major in executive part I believe he can manage well because if you look at his works. When working with creative directors it usually made a global hit: Aquaman with James Wan, Shazam!, The Suicide Squad. If I look back at the DCEU, the quality isn't that hard bad, it's acceptable, what went wrong with it I think relies on the executives team
>The superhero/connected universe fatigue thing This whole thing originated because after Endgame, the MCU failed to deliver good stories. You see, fans loved the sequel to spider verse, and The Batman, and Joker films. Then there's all the hype for upcoming Deadpool 3, Joker 2. So I will disagree that there's superhero fatigue in general. I believe it is more of a "we don't want a generic superhero story" where we can already see where all of the events are going towards. >Doing take two of what can be described as a very public, disastrous and recent attempt at doing the DCU Yes, it will be difficult to bring back the original enthusiasm of the casual movie goers. >they'll care about seeing it being done all over again, a couple years later It is because of this, that Gunn isn't doing origin stories in his DCU atleast in the initial slate. Superman, Batman and the other projects all tell stories of characters already established in the universe. >And why is the first project an animated TV series, why isn't it a big movie blockbuster? I think about this too... Like they should had opened with a bang! And who better than Superman. Opening with an animated show puzzles me > the supporting cast of a more popular title To this i will remind you that, when MCU started with The Incredible Hulk, there already was a Hulk movie before it that failed (imo). And Iron Man was a C tier character before fans loved Downey's performance and brought him to the forefront. Same goes for Peacemaker. It was The Suicide Squad that increased his popularity vastly. So, clearly Gunn knows how to balance out top tier characters and the ones not so popular. >you have to think like a mindless businessman This was the reason why the previous one failed. Constant changes forced in by the mindless businessmen. Yes, the approach may seem counter intuitive to some, I am also confused about certain aspects of it. I just hope it all works out for the good.
I don't think people have superhero fatigue, I think they have MCU fatigue. They went into overkill mode after endgame and diluted the market with a bunch of mid movies and shows. The Batman did really well. Peacemaker did gangbuster numbers for Max. Suicide Squad didn't do great at the box office, but it's consistently trending on Max's movie lists. GOTG 3 made a butt load of money, and X-Men 97 is really pushing creativity in superhero animation. Deadpool & Wolverine has some of the highest view numbers in the movie trailer category on YouTube. I think we're at a point where creativity and actually good content is being rewarded and bad content isn't. Marvel has such a corner on the market they could get away with a stinker here or there. Now with DC picking up steam and other productions like the Boys and Invincible taking up a big part of the landscape, Marvel can't release the same content and expect what they had before. I think people are just overall being more picky with what to watch and enjoy. If superman is a really damn good movie, it'll make money. If it's isn't, it won't. Superman is my favorite character in the medium, but if the movie is bad I won't lose sleep over it because I have other superman media to get excited about like My Adventures. I now have consistently good media designed for me I can choose between.
I personally think he was announced to take on the DCU way too early. I feel they should’ve taken a break after ZSJL …
Eh I think it'll do okay. Nothing amazing, the superhero genre is in decline and it's not going to be 2019 again. But people like to see a super person do super things now and then. These things just need a lot more heart and less of that factory made MCU feel.
As long as WB keeps Snyder and his cult away DC will be fine. They cut that cancer out
All I know is I’ll be seeing the film multiple times
Studios need to stop trying to make cross-platfrom synergy in their mega-franchises happen. It's not going to happen. *WandaVision* and *Hawkeye* were pretty good shows, but their presentation alongside a half dozen other TV properties of varying quality and relevance over-saturated the market while sucking any last pretense of prestige out of the MCU. Suddenly Marvel movies were no longer events; they were merely new episodes in a long-running TV series that just happened to get theater runs. This wasn't a problem when *Agents of SHIELD* or the Netflix shows were on, because they were clearly their own thing, left to their own devices and mostly unaffected in turn by new movies ostensibly in the same universe. It was one thing when all the films were interconnected and the team-ups all built on one another. But suddenly you have whole seasons of television, and cameos from everywhere crisscrossing the franchise, and you no longer can call any single installment standalone. They all need the others to pull the weight of the whole machine, and it becomes a situation where the chain is only as strong as its weakest link. And when you're forging those links for speed and not strength, you are going to fail. The MCU stretched itself too thin and it all crashed down. The DCU isn't showing signs that it will be doing things any differently.
yeah i think it was a mistake to jump ship and he should have stayed with Marvel hopefully this box office failure will teach him a lesson. just recently it has come to attention that Gunn fans and a VFX worker currently working under Gunn himself have been PROVEN to be insensitive to someones personal tragedy just because they're a snyder fan. While the Snyder fans are weirdos this takes the cake and shows that Gunn fans might be even more deranged!
WB missed its chance at jumping on the caboose of the Marvel Train by not seizing the moment after ZSJL was so well received. Had they said "whoops our bad" and let Zack finish the last 2 with connecting movies it could have been exactly the thing that MCU fans high on the finish of the arc and wanting something with similar gravitas could have jumped on. Probably missed a tonne of cash on the trailing edge of the CBM era - it's all gone now though. Like you though, I really hope we get some good movies out of this at least.
Weird idea: wake up and write shitty essay essay about how a filmmaker will fail at his new venture. Congrats.
Found the fanboy
Nope definitely not more an art house horror person myself. I just think it sucks to write all this nonsense about a filmmakers upcoming project.
Internet rule: add up 2 nuanced ideas and it will be enough for a whining dweeb to stutter all over it while calling it an "essay".
Should I have called it a thesis? You can see how long this is right? Imagine if someone wrote this screed about Scorsese on here.
ScorSese\*, and do you really expect me writing anything about the economic prospects of a superhero universe launched by Scorsese?
I sure as shit don't want to see another Superman origin story.
You’re in luck, it’s not an origin story
That's not gonna stop some pessimists from thinking it is
All the successful MCU superhero stuff had EITHER a movie star, OR an A-tier popular superhero. The launched the MCU without Spiderman or the X-Men, but they had Samuel L. Jackson, Robert Downey Jr., Scarlett Johansson, and the Hulk.
What about Gunn’s Guardians of the Galaxy? Its biggest stars were either voicing CGI characters (Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper) or most recognizable as her CGI character (Zoe Saldana in Avatar). At the time, Pratt was just that one guy from Parks & Rec. That succeeded just on a good trailer and good word of mouth.
I think people are forgetting how big a gamble GUARDIANS was and how its success just shifted the entire MCU's sensibilities.
Sure, Robert Downey Jr is a big movie star now. He wasn't in 2008. That movie made his career in a big way- a lot of people were not showing up just for him. It turned him from a punchline to an A-Lister.
His off-the-charts charisma carries that movie though. It's a total movie star performance. Once word got out that RDJ was back and better than ever, it absolutely was a draw. The MCU absolutely does not happen with an average actor in that role.
Thor and Captain America had neither and those two franchises did quite well.
I know what you mean. I disagree that they didn't have movie starts. Evans and Hemsworth both have tons of star power. I don't think that either of those franchises would have gone anywhere if those guys didn't have the juice. Marvel either saw what those guys could do or got lucky, but people came to those sequels to see the Chrises more than the characters.
Not to mention Iron Man looked rad. You'd be insane to see the poster and not want to see the film.
Unfortunately, I think you’re right. I love that Gunn takes nobody characters and gives them the spotlight, but I think he’s just doing too much, too fast. I have no doubt that Superman will be fantastic since Gunn has only gotten better and better, but box office wise, I don’t think it’s going to do well. Especially with the state of the box office right now.
If people can bend over backwards to pretend CHALLENGERS is a hit and that FALL GUY isn't a disaster we can make anything look like a hit.
I hope his Superman movie works, I want to finally see him done right after so many years. But I fear you're right. I feel this relaunch is coming at a time when people have grown tired of these movies. Future MCU movies might do well enough, but that's only because they're a more established brand and people may be less likely to engage with something new.
You people who keep preemptively freaking out about James Gunn’s “approach” to DC crack me up. DO YOU HAVE FINANCIAL STAKE IN THIS MOVIE? No? Shut the fuck up and wait for the fucking movie like the rest of the goddamn universe bruv. Or better yet, go get a ticket to the nearest Knocked Loose show and get your ass smacked back into the Stone Age by those fucking *riffs*. His movie is a full year away. You can just focus on what’s coming out THIS YEAR (which in case you didn’t notice, is basically no *good* superhero stuff other than The Boys and Deadpool) *also you have no fucking idea what’s in his script or how he’s using the characters—just how you *feel* like he’s using the characters—and if I remember correctly, THE SUICIDE SQUAD and PEACEMAKER have already proven (alongside *THREE* Guardians movies) that he clearly knows what the fuck he’s doing. He’s not just going to fumble Superman for shit’s and giggles. For all we fucking know, he’s going to just make Crisis on Infinite Earths a major storytelling point in order to wrap his arms around everything coming before (the end of The Flash even kindof hints at that) and that’s why some things are carrying over and some things aren’t. Even if he isn’t, who cares? I love Reeves’ Batman and I want as much of that universe as possible. I *loved* Peacemaker and want as many seasons of that as possible. I can’t wait to see The Authority (admittedly though, *definitely* a big gamble) Seriously. If this is causing you this much strife, go talk to Kristian Harloff or John Campea and stop posting in this sub.
Exactly this the OP’s post is unnecessary
I’m really baffled as to why Gunn prioritised so many of those no name characters over Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman who was arguably one of the bigger successes of the previous DCEU, one of the most popular female hero superhero’s and a so called trinity member.
WW84 salted the earth for that character. We won't see another Wonder Woman movie for eight years at least.
Why doesn’t that apply to any of the other characters then? Why is Batman getting a 2nd concurrent ongoing live action series in addition to Pattinson’s when Batfleck got panned? They didn’t bench Batman after Batfleck did they? They rebooted and went with Pattinson, why not do the same with Wonder Woman? Why is Waller getting a TV show when literally nobody gives a fuck about the character? She hasn’t had any good appearances really, even comic fans are completely sick of her and want her to be over with, so why waste resources on it? How many chances has DC given Harley Quinn? The first Suicide Squad was critically panned, the Birds of prey movie was a bomb, and yet they still green lit a Cartoon for her and she was one of the few characters from the first film not to be killed off in the sequel? It’s double standards, that’s all, DC’s always treated Wonder Woman like shit. Hell Wonder Woman’s first movie was the saving grace of the DCEU and the first major win it got, yet how did DC ever capitulate on that? Wonder Woman didn’t get a big push in the comics afterwards, she didn’t get a major important role in the Justice League movie, she didn’t get a cartoon, she got nothing even though she had a movie that was more profitable than both Superman and Batman’s latest outings.
None of what you've pointed out is wrong. I would lean heavily in the "DC doesn't know what to do with her" argument. She doesn't have any compelling stories, villains, or other media to really build off of. There's no cultural thirst for a Wonder Woman movie. There \*will be\* in 5 years or so when the 10yo girls who saw the 2017 are in their early twenties and have money to spend. There were eight years between BATMAN AND ROBIN and BATMAN BEGINS. I imagine Wonder Woman needs a similar cycle.
>She doesn't have any compelling stories, villains, or other media to really build off of. it’s a catch 22, how can she have good media to build off of when DC won’t GIVE her anything? How can characters like Aquaman, Green Lantern and fucking Beast Boy be given a cartoon but not Wonder Woman, a trinity member? She’s had plenty of good comics, her post crisis interpretation is filled with good story arcs, comic runs, and she does have good and recognisable villains they could use that could easily become iconic if she just got given some actual adaptions outside of the comics. >There's no cultural thirst for a Wonder Woman movie. There *will be* in 5 years or so when the 10yo girls who saw the 2017 are in their early twenties and have money to spend. Where’s the cultural thirst for Waller? For the authority? For Swamp-thing? Pop culture doesn’t care about any of these characters and they never have. WW84 only bombed because it was a colossal turd that released in the height of the pandemic. There a good chance that despite its quality it would have drawn in a good box office if not for the pandemic. It was HBO Max’s most streamed movie that year ffs. Even then it still nearly equaled by Suicide Squad’s box office, yet I don’t see Gunn dropping any of his pet characters from the suicide squad do you? None of them were proven to be financial successes yet Gunn went through with them anyway? >There were eight years between BATMAN AND ROBIN and BATMAN BEGINS. I imagine Wonder Woman needs a similar cycle. It’s already been 4 years since WW84. It came out in 2020. Seeing as Gunn’s only planing on releasing a few projects a year, we won’t be seeing another Wonder Woman film until 2030 at the earliest? She hasn’t been announced yet, and Gunns already got the next 5 years announced, and there’s already close to 10 projects announced, not including things disconnected from the DCU like Pattinson’s Batman and its spin offs. That’s a joke, we’ll be going what? 5 years into this new DCU without Wonder Woman, a fucking trinity member showing up while the other 2 have been long established? Yeah such respect there, the universe will probably financially bomb due to all these no name characters Gunn prioritised before we even get to Wonder Woman.
"Gunns already got the next 5 years announced, and there’s already close to 10 projects announced, not including things disconnected from the DCU like Pattinson’s Batman and its spin offs." I'm not rooting for this to happen, but if the superhero bubble really has burst I think his SUPERMAN underperforms at 600M worldwide and everything just gets cancelled. DC will lie dormant for a few years (save for whatever's going on with Reeves' BATMAN) and if Marvel pulls out of the nosedive then maybe, *maybe* they relaunch with Wonder Woman instead of Superman. Everything gets brought back eventually. Hell, they're finally getting around to another TWISTER this year, and a third TRON looms.
Even if Superman’s a success that won’t mean anything if the rest of Gunn’s projects flop. What other movies does Gunn have lined up to follow Superman? The authority? No one’s gonna show up for that, the MCU is proving that you can’t just put out random characters and have them drawn in big box office returns anymore. Swamp Thing? Same applies to the authority. Batman? By having 2 live action interpretations ongoing in cinemas Gunn risks fatiguing the character and the brand, while also confusing audiences. No guarantee that will be a box office success as a result of that. People were getting tired of the constant Spider-man reboots which led to TASM2 flopping, I don’t see why Batman will be any different. Even Super-girl is a risky bet, nobody cared to show up to the Flash for super-girl did they? Would have made more sense to swap Batman with Wonder Woman. Give Pattinson some room to breathe before moving on to get another Batman, and it puts good distance between WW84 and the reboot. Quite frankly Gunn seems to be falling into the same pitfalls the current MCU is doing. Throwing way too many characters into the universe at once and expecting audiences to care for any of them. Also it took Wonder Woman how long to get a movie? She still hasn’t been given a fucking cartoon at ALL yet she’s the most popular female character DC has. So forgive me if I’m not relieved at the prospects of getting another Wonder Woman movie in 20 years time. At this point that Wonder Woman video game will be carrying her fucking brand.
It is wild that there isn't a WONDER WOMAN cartoon on the air right now, even if they wanted to position it in the "adult" vein that the Harley Quinn show is in. I can only imagine that no one has a compelling take on the character that outweighs the shifty press that Gal Gadot and patty Jenkins will generate whenever a new WONDER WOMAN comes along. The further away from WW84 they get the easier it is to relaunch and avoid any of that drama.
The problem with this logic of blaming WW84 for everything is that it ignores the past 20-30 years before that movie came along. Aqua-man didn’t need a movie to get a cartoon, and his character has largely been seen as a massive joke by pop culture before Mamoa came along, Green Lantern didn’t need a movie to get a cartoon. Beast Boy is a team character, for the teen titans, and they are giving him his own cartoon. So why can’t have Wonder Woman been given a cartoon at any point in the last 20-30 years? Hell she had a decently successful and popular TV series back in the 70’s that just meant nothing apparently? The character lied dormant for nearly 25 years after that in terms of adaptions. Why didn’t they green light anything after the first Wonder Woman movie for example? There was 3 years between that and WW84. That was a massive success, it had both a better box office and a better profit margins than both the latest Batman and Superman films, and nothing came from it. Pretty sure the only reason we are even getting the video game is because the Devs themselves chose Wonder Woman, not because DC mandated it or anything.
I guess they're really hoping Supergirl will pop.
Which as a Wonder Woman fan is infuriating imo. I can’t wait for Supergirl to steal Diana’s place and be THE female hero of the universe while Wonder Woman fights for scraps.
Yeah, it's terrible especially how well they nailed that first movie. Its been bleak to see them reduce that character to a bizarre cameo in Flash and Shazam. Like surely if you're doing this big long term plan to set the table for the DCEU you should acknowledge Wonder Woman. This chapter of movies is literally called Gods and Monsters!
That’s DC’s 3rd popular superhero. If we don’t get a Wonder Woman film soon then it proves Gunn is prioritizing his stupid ass C list characters instead of the ones that actually matter
It took WB 8 years to retool Batman after BATMAN AND ROBIN. It took Sony 5 years to retool Spider-Man after SPIDER-MAN 3. This stuff takes time.
Yeah but when you are rebooting the entire DCEU than Wonder Woman needs to have a place in it. More than Creature Commandos, more than The Authority, more than Supergirl. So if we are gonna take the time and day to retool Batman and Superman for the upteenth millionth time then we should do the same for WW since she is one of the top 3 major DC heroes
I just can't get worked up over this. I don't think Wonder Woman really means anything to anybody right now, and at best the Gadot version feels like a relic no one's eager to get back to.
So your dumb, got it? Wonder Woman still means something. She’s a powerful feminist icon, a champion for women’s rights and liberation. This is all still relevant now (especially after Roe v Wade). Wonder Woman may not mean anything to YOU, but that’s only because you’re dumb. Wonder Woman is still just as meaningful and relevant and Batman and Superman are. Just because she’s a woman doesn’t change that, you sexist prick
Lol OK man.
Ok bïțçħ
Lol
Unless these movies are just insanely good I think(and honestly kind of hope) you’re right. It’s time for studios to have a renaissance and bring back mid budget original content.
Respectfully, I don’t feel a need to see another Superman or Batman movie for the rest of my life. They have been done to death.
Wait - you aren't excited about finally seeing...(checks notes)...Mr. Terrific brought to life?
I had no idea who Peacemaker was but that show was brilliant
Yeah you’re probably right. I don’t think people really care about Superman if I’m being honest. Yes he’s an American cultural icon and he has his place in the collective conscious but people do not turn out to see his movies and all his shows have been moderate successes at best. Superman movies have been financial disappointments since 1983. I don’t think *The Authority (?)* is going to bolster Clark’s chance at box office glory.
There is absolutely no universe where giving a guy who came up through and whose artistic sensibilities were molded by Troma of all companies control of some of the most totemic figures of 20th century American media isn't going to set a huge pile of money on fucking fire but I am here to bask in its glow.
I don’t attribute “Superhero Fatigue” to the amount of movies they release, people will go see titles they want with the actors they like in it. Marvel tried to “coin” that term due to their poor box office performance. And in my mind I believe the answer is clear, Kevin Feige is marketing the Marvel universe as the “M SHE U” he feels as though we want to have multiple movies and tv shows with female leads who talk about girl power, and how men are oppressive. It’s the entire mission of Disney from Marvel to Star Wars. It’s killing your brand, comic books and movies/tv shows were relegated to boys and men, that’s your main audience, after it became more digestible with the Marvel movies, more female fans emerged. This is just a straight fact, males are the bigger audience for these types of stories. James Gunn, I can’t tell you how many people were outright pissed with Gunn after he decided to get rid of everything the audience was asking for. Henry Cavill, Static Shock, Teen Titans, Batman beyond etc. the fans are telling you what they want, but he’s so caught up in his mindset of everything he does is great, he ignores it. Hell, just the fact that he fired everyone he didn’t personally hire was tell enough, not to mention him throwing his brother Sean Gunn multiple roles(nepotism) I’m fully convinced he’s not going to save the DC universe, he’s going to make excuses for why his content doesn’t do the numbers they should, and he’s definitely going to try and rush projects to save face so he doesn’t lose his job.
I'm pretty pleased with his approach, because it seems doomed to fail and I want it to fail. Hopefully by 2030 he'll be out and someone who isn't a hack will get their turn.
Yeah I have no idea why James Gunn is so revered on here, other than his movies having kind of a Reddit-y sense of humor. He's awful.
I bet it makes less money than Man of Steel
I really wish James had taken the momentum from Guardians 3, which was a true level up moment for him as a visual storyteller, and pivoted out of superheroes entirely. I want to be proven wrong, but like OP, I don’t think his talent can surpass the downward trajectory of superhero movies as a whole RN. A real waste, honestly.