DC Extended Universe

The event teased in the Flash was Crisis on Infinite Earths because the Red Skies mentioned in the pilot and the disappearance of Barry Allen.

Also mentioned of the Waynetech and Queen Consolidated merger.

edited 23rd Oct '14 9:05:51 AM by higherbrainpattern

My god, I'm really beginning to hate other comic book fans.

First they whine because Wally West is planned to be black in the tv show.

Now they whine about Ezra Miller, a proven and talented actor, being cast as the Flash. "Oh he's too skinny ,isn't blonde, and isn't hot." Ignoring the fact that Grant Gustin doesn't really look like Comic Flash either.

Jeez, you'd think nerds of all people would stop fixating on the superficial shit.

Also all the butt-hurt over the TV and Movie universes not being connected. I'm just fine with Arrow having jack shit to do with the movies due to the way it completely waters down awesome villains like Firefly and Count Vertigo etc etc.

edited 23rd Oct '14 12:25:15 PM by Mr.Didact

Iris is Wally's aunt, right? Makes sense that Wally would be black too.

And it's not just comic book fans. Movies, animes, books, you name it, it'll have a goodly amount of crazy fans.

edited 23rd Oct '14 12:33:28 PM by Eagal

After their casting of Aquaman, I don't care who they choose to play whom. All I can think about is how much I miss having Wally West as the Flash. I'm a little too used to Barry being one of the only consistently dead people in comic book history and you know, growing up JL/JLU kind of makes me associate him with the Flash.

I know Word of God confirmed the DCAU Flash was Wally but did the show ever establish it? I can't remember.

edited 23rd Oct '14 1:56:13 PM by kostya

Batman rattles off all their secret identities in the season 2 finale "Starcrossed", leading Wally to unmask.

Eisenberg is in talks to appear in Suicide Squad as Lex Luthor.

Well, I'm glad they aren't foolish enough to kill the character in his first movie, then.

Lex isn't really a villain you can kill off easily, since unlike Zod, Superman should never really be in a situation where killing a mortal like him is necessary.

No, but in different alternate continuities, he's often been a victim of Hoist by His Own Petard.

DC has yet to truly embrace the idea that a villain shouldn't have to die at the end to make a conflict complete (even TDK had Two-Face), at least not in the post Batman 1989 world.

But, if there were any character to start that with it'd be Lex. Lex - especially modern day Lex - dying at the end would kind of defeat the purpose of the kind of threat he is in the first place: one with so much control and power that while Superman can deal with the symptoms of his schemes, he cannot bring down the man himself - not fully.

To be fair, Lex didn't die at the end of Superman Returns either, although that was a pre-89 movie in spirit.

The question is less if Superman can kill or not but if it is such a good idea to kill off his main villain.

Technically, The Dark Knight spared the Joker, and they were planning to bring him back, but...

If you want to be technical, Batman & Robin was the first comic book film to spare both of their main villains.

The reason why comic book villains tend to get killed off is because they want a sense of closure and finality with the story. Hell, especially recently it's been a trend to have the villain being captured at the halfway point only to be a part of their master plan to escape and cause more havoc. Joker Immunity and Cardboard Prison are a hallmark of the genre, and Recycled Script is also a concern.

Simply put, big budgeted movies with 2 year intervals do not have the same format as with serialized comic books and can't reproduce the same structure.

You mean the first comic book film after Batman 89? Because it's not the very first to have multiple villains and spare them all. And Batman And Robin was another camp revival, which could explain sparing both villains.

Also, the assumption in that description, that a movie with a similar plot must have a villain death at the end to generate the necessary closure, is inaccurate. Killing off villains is something traditional, but not necessary (in fact, given how many superhero films have plots so incredibly centered around the hero's personal problems, sometimes doing so feels a bit superfluous) - it's something DC, whose approach towards superhero films has been fairly traditional and inside the box so far, is more liable to default to than Marvel (who also kills off their villains quite a bit anyway), but the point we're trying to make is that it's something they should be more comfortable with averting.

Though, funnily enough, one of the few superhero films I can think of where, as it was written, killing off the villain might have actually be necessary is Man Of Steel, where Zod's death is fairly symbolic in regards to the movie's themes.

edited 26th Oct '14 9:49:58 PM by KnownUnknown

It's perhaps worth mentioning that while Poison Ivy didn't die, the willingness to kill her, or at least to let her die, seemed to be there— Batgirl had no way of knowing she'd survive being tossed into a giant carnivore plant that had just closed around her, and none of the 'heroes' seemed too worried about getting her out right afterwards.

Not to mention they just let her in the same cell as the immune to her powers, very vengeful, and still wearing strenght enhancing armor, serial killer whose beloved wife she tried to murder. I figure no one gave a shit about her survival by that point, because that's downright bending the rules and laws to get her to that point.

edited 26th Oct '14 10:06:49 PM by NapoleonDeCheese

What movie are you talking about? Cause the action genre in general tends to kill off their villains. The fact Batman and Robin had both their villains captured and imprisoned in the end is extremely rare in the action genre and comic book movies in general, forgoing any debate of the movie's quality.

The whole discussion is also moot, because a major part of Luthors rivalry with Superman is that by himself he is not a threat, but the plans he sets in motion are the real danger. Superman doesn't kill him because it isn't necessary to stop him like it was with Zod, and Luthor is just crafty enough to keep all those legal implications things off his back. All those "parodies" that have the MOS Superman gleefully killing people ignore the circumstances the movie spent a lot of time setting up. Zod is a Starter Villain, Luthor is the Arch-Enemy with Joker Immunity.

Batman 66 didn't kill any of its villains, nor iirc did the first two Superman movies. Though they existed, superhero movies weren't really a thing for a long time - even after Batman 89, they just became less uncommon rather than outright common like they are now. One of the reasons I keep bringing up Batman 89 is because it's a Trope Codifier for the progression superhero movies typically take (which includes the way the hero and villain relate to each other over the course of the movie - even the 80's Superman movie, which is also responsible for a lot of superhero exposure, doesn't emphasize Luthor and Superman's personal antagonism to the extent that Batman 1989 made it more typical) - that template wasn't quite as set in stone before then.

As for whether Luthor survives because Superman doesn't need to kill him (which is to say, he's not like the Penguin, who Batman can leave to his own devices unless he gets out of line because his schemes don't typically require his attention as much), I'm not sure I can agree with that. Generally, Luthor is emphasized as someone whose influence and control is as malign as it is ubiquitous, but whom Superman can't take down, because the only way to do so would be to break his own rules.

He is, however, not likely to be someone who would force Superman into a situation where he would have no other escape but to kill him as Zod was - even if he were disgraced and had nothing to live for like Zod, Luthor loves himself too much for that, and sees others as too beneath him to cause himself to die in a bit of spite on their account (he'd rather see them humiliated by his revenge).

edited 26th Oct '14 11:46:34 PM by KnownUnknown

I dunno, the Luthor of the DCAU purposely planned the events leading up to Superman murdering him when he witnessed an alternate universe where Luthor becoming President causing Sup's to finally snap and kill him.

I'm talking about modern comic book movies that are action oriented and at least attempt to take itself seriously ^note Batman and Robin tries for a middle ground of drama and camp, which is while it is reviled so much. The '78 Superman movie and what came after is basically my benchmark on that regard, not those movies that are deliberate self-parody and based on a serialized tv show. Superman II killed Zod, deleted scene notwithstanding. The entire Superman (and even Batman) mythology tends to rely on his villains accidentally killing themselves instead of them doing the act personally, but that's still having the villain die.

Killing off villains in these big, standalone movies makes some sense because they are likely not going to have the opportunity to show the character try again 10 "episodes" later. Point is, concerns that Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice will kill off Luthor is unfounded because of the character's history, but there is a precedence that movie villains are killed so that there isn't stagnation and unnecessary continuity bleed-over.

Well, there's no particular need to have a villain who survives recur at all unless you're making a universe, so the simplicity of continuity doesn't get hurt much by simply having them not die. The audience can freely assume they're still in jail or even who know's where like The Joker without much problems, and if they do feel the need to explain where they are a single throwaway line (which is what supporting characters who don't recur tend to get, if that) can typically clear it up.

Good point. Though I dunno if I could see comics Luthor doing that.

edited 27th Oct '14 12:49:04 AM by KnownUnknown

And that was also part of what I was saying, killing the villain gives a sense of "We've beaten this character and they will never harm anyone again" while just detaining them is, on paper, a much weaker ending. Just subverting expectations doesn't make a better story, you have to compensate for the reasons why those expectations were there. The Dark Knight did it by making the final conflict with the Joker pretty spectacular in its set-piece, and something of a Pyrrhic Victory / Bittersweet Ending.

Knew The Rock was going to be Black Adam. So long as he gets a Ensemble Dark Horse treatment like Loki from Marvel Cinematic Universe I'm down with seeing some of their flicks.

EDIT:

This is long overdue but also wants to say I'm sorry about bugging the shit out of all of you guys in this thread.

edited 29th Oct '14 4:22:09 PM by Couchpotato20