Justice League

“when Shazam seems more heroic than a man that calls himself Superman“

He literally died to save the world. Y’all got some stupid high standards.

You know, i just saw this and it was average. Not bad but just 'fine'.

Then i went and saw Justice League Dark (2017) and that was actually really good (It is an animated DC film).

Some leaked snippets of the Wonder Woman 1984 scene shown off. As well as some caps.

"I walked away from the world of man for 100 years" indeed.

I think we're all just gonna pretend Bv S never happened and I'm okay with that.

Comicwriter: I disagree A LOT about the relability thing, at least in term of movie verse, why? because I dont think people care about the chararter being reliable but rather being charming and funny, after all that seen what Marvel(and now Fox) focus more about.

Tony Stark? while he being a controling freak is intersting, people want him to show is ego and is rock star act and build more things, Hulk just Smash and Thor drama only make Loki more popular, with Thor ragnarok droping all pretense of seriousness and being more a comic movie in marvel universe.

If anything I think this is what People tend to love Batman: he have this gritty "Muggle power" fantasy writen on him, while Superman ether is to cheery and happy or to damn powerfull, if Anything I least I can thank Sydner for remenbering Batman can be scary and awfull motherfucker rather than "batgod".

Also let face, Aquaman eco warrior angle always feel flat, specially since now he is King of Atlantis, making is effort come more as "this is my terrotory" than any care about earth.

@thatindiantroper

To be fair, The Big Red Cheesewas always meant to be even more gooder than the Big Blue Boy Scout. Plus he’s a kid, so it makes sense for him to be more heroic.

I honestly don't get your distinction there…having a relatable character simply means that the audience is able to feel for said character. That can work over likability, but doesn't have to. Loki for example isn't likable at all, but the audience are all over him because they get where he is coming from and what made him the way he is. It's about empathy, not about a character being "fun".

If anything I think this is what People tend to love Batman: he have this gritty "Muggle power" fantasy writen on him, while Superman ether is to cheery and happy or to damn powerfull, if Anything I least I can thank Sydner for remenbering Batman can be scary and awfull motherfucker rather than "batgod".

The reason I hate Muggle Power as a trope in a nutshell.

This is pretty much why Batman super fans are among the worst comic book fans & fans in general.

And it’s what ruined Batman & turned him into a sign of immense mockery.

Batman. Can overcome aliens, space cops, speedsters, and gods.

Can’t hold his own against some guy with a pistol and a skin blemish.

Batman: Secretive. Paranoid. My way or the highway attitude. Arrogant. Stubborn. Called out on his behavior constantly.

Is somehow still popular in-universe in the superhero community.

Tbf popular doesn't mean liked. Really outside of the Batfamily and the other members of the Trinity, Bruce is generally considered to be rather unpleasant to deal with.

“Plus he’s a kid, so it makes sense for him to be more heroic.“ Have you talked to any teenagers recently ? If no kid in this movie is a Nazi, or a Stalin apologist I’ll consider it a rosy picture.

Oooooh Y’know what’d be a great plot ? Billy having to deal with the alt-right infiltrating his school.

We could even bring in Uncle Sam, the anthropomorphic personification of America that exists in the DC verse.

Edited by thatindiantroper on Jul 23rd 2018 at 9:09:37 PM

How much he is called on is actitude this days? and I mean for reals, not a slap on the wrist kind of way.

" I honestly don't get your distinction there"

Easy: People can get why a chararter does what it does, but if they dont care it dosent really matter, look chararter like Ronan or Hela, nobody gives a damn their motivation but care they are hammy and over the top, as it show, you can sell a chararter for being charming way than being understandable.

They tried the supposedly more "realistic" jerk teen Billy in the comics and it went about as well as you'd expect. Thankfully Sandberg seems to have his head on straight.

It wouldn't be a DC Universe thread without you criticizing Marvel over something.

Now that Snyder's out the door, Jeffrey Dean Morgan seems to think the plan of having him come back to play Flashpoint Batman is probably no longer happening.

Robert De Niro is in talks for the Joker origin movie.

Well let me put it this way: Batman is more popular than Aquaman, WW and Superman because is more fun to see him being smart and using diferent gadgets while outsmarting everyone, while Superman enjoyment is hard because a) he is too powerfull and b)to damn nice.

Is kinda the things are, Iron man and Batman are the face it(well, maybe not anymore thanks to WW, know now) of their cinematic universe because they are charming even when, moraly speaking, both are really closer to be a damn supervillian.

Comic men, is....weird.

Birds of Prey will shoot in California and will enjoy substantial tax benefits from the state

http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-birds-of-prey-20180723-story.html

WB is rumored to be looking at a "Kristen Stewart type" actress to play Barbara Gordon in the Batgirl film (though no word on whether Babs is Batgirl or Oracle)

https://twitter.com/DanielRPK/status/1021034321887539201

Spider-Man: Homecoming's (first) Shocker actor Logan Marshall-Green wants to play Mister Miracle and Ava Du Vernay has shown her interest

https://twitter.com/ava/status/1021599476753022976

Batman is, in large part, more popular than the rest of DC's characters because he has more exposure, and unlike the rest of them has had significantly more outside the comics play than any of them - even Superman, really. He's a household name because DC has been spending the last 70-odd years making him one, and he's more popular with changing generations because they always release a movie and/or a tv show when there's a new audience to reach.

Superman isn't less popular because he's less endearing naturally, but because adaptations rarely take steps to update the character with the times as the comics have.

Aquaman and WW are less popular because their last adaptations specifically about them were in the 70's, respectively, leaving Aquaman with a reputation for being a silly cartoon character since his only big adaptation was in a silly cartoon, and Wonder Woman with a perception of being more or less a supporting character (since before the movie, her show was the only thing to portray her in a starring role).

Popularity with comics characters is always a function of exposure. Characters with big, fun movies or tv shows made about them are regarded as big, fun characters themselves. Characters with crappy movies or tv shows made about them are regarded as crappy. That's ultimately all there is to it.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Jul 24th 2018 at 8:50:58 AM

Kinda but is not so simple, since you need to have something to turn around people and that is when charm and relatability come in: Spiderman is a good example when you are both charming(is jokes and sense of humor for example) and being relatable(he is just a young man with problem like many of us) which is why he used to stand apart to other heroes.

Also is not like Superman didnt have their share of adaptation, between movies, WB series, etc.

Sometimes you only need a lucky shot, Aquaman suffer more than anyone thanks to superfriend and Freeze got a huge popularity boost thanks to Animated series.

Characters often remain endearing even they are neither charming nor relateable. Most action movie stars or horror movie stars, for example, tend to have consistent appeal simply because they are the tools through which a specific kind of story is told, not because they have to fulfill a certain character type to be successful. Characters who are harming and relateable, on the flip side, can and will fail if the stories they’re in aren’t engaging enough.

Storytelling, especially, is not always about selling just one specific product, but also about making people aware that they can be entertained by things they aren’t already used to.

If you can entertain people with a character, and do so in a memorable way, then people will latch onto those characters. That’s why exposure is so important, and it’s the thing that Marvel has been taking the heart that it took DC so long to understand: if you can introduce people to characters in a way that showcases that things that make them interesting, then they will garner interest. And there are far more than just a few ways to make that happen. These characters wouldn’t have lasted for up to 80 years if they weren’t capable of drawing in audiences.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Jul 24th 2018 at 6:48:32 AM

"Most action movie stars or horror movie stars, for example, tend to have consistent appeal simply because they are the tools through which a specific kind of story is told, not because they have to fulfill a certain character type to be successful"

While that is quite ture in a sense, I dont think is so much today in a world where franchise arent just a exception but a rule, meaning that you HAVE to sell the chararter and because of that, they become more chararter driven.

"if you can introduce people to characters in a way that showcases that things that make them interesting, then they will garner interest. "

But you do that moving the story to showcase the chararter(who is the main atraction here), being to the deteriment to the story itself, that is something it also took Marvel quite a bit to get(only now in phase 3): that people want to see a story told with the chararter, rather than just be about them.

DC try to have a more story driven movies and...it kinda fail, and quite hard actually, it seen they are movie away from it and follow the leader, not something I enjoy but I can get why.

Nobody's arguing that character driven stories don't sell. I'm arguing against your conflating "stories should be character driven" into "only certain character types are capable of selling stories," because that's demonstrably false with a looooong history of movies and stories disproving it.

Hence this part of my last post:

Bolded for emphasis, but the whole thing is important.

There's more than one way to be engaging. Characters don't always need to be charming to be engaging. Characters don't even always need to be relatable to be engaging (hence the appeal of a Byronic Hero, among other types). A character is a function of the story they're in, and vice versa. And once introduced to a character concept, if that concept both works for the story and the story works to accentuate the character, then the audience will accept it. When put into a movie, especially a big name, mainstream movie, a successful run of this will lead to that character type being accepted in a wider way.

If there's anything the current era of movies has shown in regards to comic book adaptations, it's the assumption only those characters and ideas that have already worked are capable of working in the future is and has always been bullshit that has dragged the industry down. Even over at Marvel, it's one of the main reasons they're criticized for being "safe," and why Dr. Strange failed to land.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Jul 24th 2018 at 9:22:14 AM

Failed to land?

I mean, it didn't fail, but it's widely regarded as bland, forgettable and lacking in character in comparison to the movies around it, for precisely that reason. He didn't gain much traction in his first foray, and had to rely on more well crafted appearances in other films to pick up the slack.

Perhaps a better way of putting it would be "failed to hit the ground running."