DC Extended Universe

Trailer leaked for BVS

And it's gone

edited 16th Apr '15 7:31:09 PM by Beaver

It's ungone.

I didn't like it.

They seem to be going with the All the Other Reindeer approach, probably partially as a reaction to all the movie watchers who blamed Clark for Metropolis's destruction. (Which is frankly idiotic) And are making the movie a response to that.

Seriously, can't the internet find something else to talk about?

The Internet is dividing it's time between this and Star Wars. Based off the teaser, the movie is going for an in-universe fear/awe reaction to Superman's existence. Some immediately kneel before Zod Superman while others (I think that was Eisenberg's Luthor) are driving the Anti-Supes movement based on his fight in Metropolis.

edited 17th Apr '15 6:15:44 AM by GethKnight

I'm guessing it's more based on bringing the Krytonians to Earth in the first place.

The whole thing reminds me too much of Spider-man. Not that I mind the destruction getting addressed, but the whole thing has a "been there, done that" feel.

Like seeing New York or DC getting destroyed every summer film. Or threatened. Or major fights being in those cities all the time. Or Superhero films in general.

It depends on the film, and said film's tone. Avengers had most of the damage being barely kept in check by the team, only one of whom causes any damage on their own and most of which is centered on the invaders without the main characters being personally involved with it. The whole idea was that they, as a team, repelled something much greater than themselves - which would likely endear them to the public a lot more.

In Man of Steel, not only was the final sequence all just two guys, but even if nothing were damaged at all the entire point of the sequence would still be to show Superman cutting loose and how powerful he really was. Which was a lot.

Given the tone the first Mo S movie had, them writing this sort of reaction for people in a sequel is a given.

The thing is, the fans always have more reason to be objective than the characters in the movie - we see everything (or at least most) as it happens, we understand how it unfolded, etc. So we know that Clark was a man just trying to figure out who he was, and how he sacrificed his history and tried to minimize casualties. From the point of view of the people of the world in-universe, however, a bunch of unstoppable aliens invaded Earth, only for one of those unstoppable aliens to fight against the others, stopping the invasion at the cost of lots of property damage.

They have reason to be grateful (but even so, only those who are in the know about Superman's involvement) but they also have reason to be distrustful.

edited 17th Apr '15 9:43:27 AM by KnownUnknown

I mean, it's five years away.

I personally was hoping the Green Lantern movie would include all of the Earth Lanterns, maybe that would have to happen later when they have a chance to introduce them.

I hope Hal Jordan is in Justice League than for the solo movie they introduce John Stewart.

I know I'm one of the few people who really enjoyed the Green Lantern movie, I know it has some flaws but I think it did a good enough job setting up the universe there's no reason a sequel couldn't be amazing. Of course, with Ryan Reynolds doing Deadpool it's unlikely he could reprise the role in Justice League if he wanted to. If he did have a cameo in Dawn of Justice I would be very pleased.

In any case a Green Lantern of some kind is expected to be in Justice League, so it'll be like Momoa or Gadot doing the team-up first before getting the solo movie.

edited 17th Apr '15 4:07:31 PM by KJMackley

So Aquaman, Cyborg, and Green Lantern are all non-white superheroes getting their own movies, plus Dwayne Johnson's Black Adam and Will Smith's Deadshot are Anti-Hero/Anti-Villain main characters in Shazam and Suicide Squad respectively.

Just felt like pointing that out.

Wonder Woman is also being played by an Israeli woman. I'm pretty sure that counts as non-white

Finally a push in the right direction, and sooner than 2018.

edited 17th Apr '15 7:27:46 PM by Tuckerscreator

No, shut up though. Don't bring your facts up in the way of my righteous indignation. I'm trying to feel persecuted and underepresented.

Not not-white enough!

I love that the Rock got to choose if he wanted to play Shazam or Black Adam and decided he wanted to play the more interesting character instead of the character that would probably have him get more money.

I still wish he could play both somehow.

Question: why is it that when fans get upset over a white character getting changed to a minority (not just black), it's Fan Dumb? Are we not able to look at it and try to understand it from both sides instead of treating it like one big eye-rolling joke?

Minorities get so few major roles there's really no reason to take what few they have away from them. Contrast that with white people who take a ridiculous amount of the lead roles. Superman, Batman, Hal Jordan, the Flash, and Aquaman are all white guys while Cyborg is a black guy. Changing Aquaman to Polynesian doesn't detract much from the overall amount of white people in lead roles whereas making Cyborg white would remove the only minority lead they have.

It's labeled as such because there is a certain subset of people who take their own political views as gospel and anything that doesn't agree with their world view is wrong. These people tend to be loud and frevrent and make discussing things a chore and so their opinion dominates. You just happen to be in a place with those people with that view point.

I think the rules should be the same for everyone...meaning changing around the race or gender of a character to meet some political quota is just as wrong as creating only straight white male characters from the get go. That doesn't mean that I am against changing it on principle...there have been examples in which it worked very well. But the more iconic a character is the less inclined I am to accept change. I am still not over the current Bond because he simply doesn't fit my idea of a charming ladies man and never will because I think that the actor is not attractive at all. I stand by my opinion that the characters in Elementary are too removed from the source text that I can accept them as adaptation. I would never accept a blond Superman because the character has looked a certain way for decades and I don't want to change this. On the other hand I couldn't care less who is cast in any of the other roles.

edited 18th Apr '15 11:08:38 AM by Swanpride

I think the first step would be for people to not assume every race change is a result of an evil, racist casting department. It's been said that some of the changes in The Last Airbender was a result of nepotism (someone owed someone a favor) and that is a whole different issue in Hollywood compared to racism.

Ultimately what really matters is if the changes work, either from Ability over Appearance, looking the part even if not technically correct and sometimes the character has a vaguely defined ethnicity to begin with.

Superman in general terms could be played by anyone from Swedish descent to Greek or Italian and still look the part. Dean Cain has a noticeable Japanese background, but no one complained about that as a race lift.

That's pretty awful. You're advocating keeping the status quo when the status quo is awful to begin with.

You're saying turning a white character into a black character is the equivalent of turning a black character into a white character. It's not and it's ignorant to say so.

A lot of the old superheroes especially the oldest ones are white because society was even more racist back then than it is now.

You can prattle about how you're just treating everyone equally but you're ignoring that to treat everyone equally everyone needs to be on the same playing field.

Minority actors are not on the same playing field as white actors.

edited 19th Apr '15 2:01:57 AM by MadSkillz

And that's exactly why your stance is so annoying. You just choose to read the part in which I said that established characters can't be changed that easily and shouldn't be either and at the same time choose to overlook the part at which I clearly said that assuming that every new character has to be a straight white male is wrong. If you look at the big blockbuster movies of the last year and the ones which were considered for academy awards, how many of them were actually based on pre-established characters? Other that the Comic Book movies, nearly none of them. Interstellar didn't have to be about an American effort to save humanity, it could have had a diverse cast. Birdman didn't need an all-white cast.

Jason Borne was a new character created during a time at which the concept of a black lead was nothing new. He could have been everything, but they went for the straight white male again. That's the right place to start. Not by complaining that characters which are established for decades are a certain way, but by opening the mind to other options during the casting of new characters.

edited 19th Apr '15 2:42:02 AM by Swanpride