Zatanna movie in talks

[Autbot_Benz]

With the Justice League Dark movie may still in limbo, one card carrying (literally) member of the team could be getting her own solo adventure first.

In Deadline's report on the slate of female-led comic book projects on the horizon, the trade mentions that there's "been talk" at Warner Bros. of a Zatanna Zatara movie. No further details are provided, but they do reiterate that plans are still in place for Supergirl and Batgirl standalone films, which will take precedence over new big-screen outings for the likes of Superman and The Flash.

Again, it sounds like this is in the very early stages and may never even see the light of day, but if the studio was interested in exploring the mystical side of the DC Films Universe, this character would be a good entry point.

https://www.comicbookmovie.com/justice_league/justice_league_dark/zatanna-movie-reportedly-being-discussed-at-warner-bros-along-with-supergirl-batgirl-a165027

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

With the Justice League Dark movie may still in limbo, one card carrying (literally) member of the team could be getting her own solo adventure first.

In Deadline's report on the slate of female-led comic book projects on the horizon, the trade mentions that there's "been talk" at Warner Bros. of a Zatanna Zatara movie. No further details are provided, but they do reiterate that plans are still in place for Supergirl and Batgirl standalone films, which will take precedence over new big-screen outings for the likes of Superman and The Flash.

Again, it sounds like this is in the very early stages and may never even see the light of day, but if the studio was interested in exploring the mystical side of the DC Films Universe, this character would be a good entry point.

https://www.comicbookmovie.com/justice_league/justice_league_dark/zatanna-movie-reportedly-being-discussed-at-warner-bros-along-with-supergirl-batgirl-a165027

Well I'll just go ahead and invest my kids' college savings into making this movie happen! No way has DC ever let me down before!

...

Sorry. I'm still sour over Netflix canning everything Defenders-related. :trazz:

[Autbot_Benz]

Well I'll just go ahead and invest my kids' college savings into making this movie happen! No way has DC ever let me down before!

...

Sorry. I'm still sour over Netflix canning everything Defenders-related. :trazz:

gotta add it to the list of DC movies that have yet to be made yet

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

gotta add it to the list of DC movies that have yet to be made yet

I saw somebody over on CBM make the point that the DCEU has racked up more "in production / let's do it!" movies than the Marvel Cinematic Universe has actually produced. That gives me the giggles, no lie. :tlol:

[Leo656]

It's true, but here's the thing: It's all your fault.

No, seriously. It's all because they're stuck in a spot where they can't do a single thing "RIGHT". No matter what they announce, or when, the feedback is always the same: Either "That's gonna be terrible" or "That's never gonna happen."

So they listen to that feedback, put a pin in it, wait for a new trend to arrive that they can cash in on, and try again. Same cycle. Maybe if we collectively stopped sh*tting on things literally 5 years before they're even close to existing, they'd have better confidence as a company. As it is, they're sitting there going, "F*ck, what DO these people want?"

They committed early on to an approach that would, essentially, do everything in a different fashion than what Marvel had already done, which is actually fairly smart if you're a business owner looking to create your own identity for your brand, but not if you're a mark. The marks all said, "No, it HAS to be exactly like Marvel, we won't tolerate anything else." So they now have shifted gears to have every future DC movie be an exact clone of the MCU formula, and as I predicted forever ago, they're getting roasted for that, too, despite the fact that they're only doing what you people told them to.

In between, they have shareholders to answer to, so they HAVE to at least have a few ideas on paper about what projects are coming next, so they can start assigning budgets and whatnot. And every time they try and get a plan going, people yell at them for it. SO, they have to do it AGAIN. "Well, we said we'd give them a _____ movie, and they called us assholes, so maybe we need to do something else?"

I can't remember if it was someone I read from Forbes a while ago, or somewhere else, but it wasn't an "entertainment" media source, it was a business source, and he made a point that makes a ton of sense. It was essentially, that in the big question of, "What do people - and the film industry - actually WANT from WB/DC?", the REAL answer is, "To go away completely", because the marketplace can't sustain TWO huge Comic Book Movie Universes with a hundred movies each, and Marvel got there first so fans and critics were already committed and emotionally invested in it. DC/WB are now "trespassing" on their already-claimed territory, so anything they do is going to be treated with suspicion and hostility. One HAS to live and one HAS to die, because the marketplace (and people's limited attention spans and entertainment dollars) can't equally sustain both, and people really like Downey as Iron Man, so DC/WB has become the big clumsy ox that can't get out of its own way, in people's minds.

Once more, the proof of this is how openly hostile we are to even the IDEA of these movies, anymore, before they're anything more than an idea. This whole "We're gonna yell at and punish them until they finally start doing things RIGHT" approach is proven not to work as a motivator. It doesn't work with professional athletes, and it doesn't work when trying to put a huge film project together, regardless of subject matter.

So no, this movie won't happen, and most of their announced projects won't happen. But it's not as simple as, "They're incompetent"; it's that they have an audience that's impossible to please and also actively rooting for them to fail (even subconsciously). They HAVE to announce new film projects because that's their job; being constantly told "We don't want these movies! We don't want ANY of your movies!" is NOT going to help them pull it together any better or faster, it's actually the entire reason things are so screwed up. They WANT to make a plan; you people don't let them.

Moral of the story: Maybe wait until something's more than a few words on paper before publicly and loudly deciding it's terrible. I know that's the exact opposite of how the internet works, but it's really the way people are supposed to act in general. Even I generally wait until I see a trailer for a film before I allow myself to have any opinion at all.

We've all seen things we loved and things we hated from DC long before "Man of Steel" came out, so this is nothing new or DCEU-related, and everybody has an opinion. But let's be real: They're not the audience for these things, they're just making them, and you folks give them NOTHING to work with so that they can get their finger on a pulse. All anyone in the audience offers is, "Copy Marvel" or "Copy childrens' cartoon shows from 25 years ago," which absolutely shouldn't happen either way. A lot of people who have never had a hand in a billion-dollar franchise, sure have very loud opinions on how it should be done, let's put it that way.

So if we're not gonna come clean and say, "Yeah, I just want them to stop making movies," then maybe let's wait for stuff to become reality before deciding it's worthless or whatever. Then, maybe a few of these things MIGHT even get made and released. It's certainly not an approach that's been tried so far. :roll:

[Andrew NDB]

F*** this. We should be watching Man of Steel 3 and Batman 2 by now, with movies like this one scattered about here and there.

[Leo656]

If the raging nerds could even agree among themselves what "proper" interpretations of those two characters even are, doubtless we would be. Sadly, "Reeve and Batman: TAS" are all they'll accept, while anything else gets ripped apart for not merely being exactly that. :roll: The majority of the caterwauling coming from people who don't even read comic books, no less. Always a fun exercise.

My wife and I are big Zatanna marks, so this movie would be something to see. Alas, it hasn't been a day since it was rumored to maybe possibly be a thing they're talking about doing one day maybe, and the audience snark is strong as ever. So back in the hat this idea goes, never to be spoken of again, like the last few dozen ideas. Nice job, folks. Way to spook the rabbit.

[Autbot_Benz]

My wife and I are big Zatanna marks, so this movie would be something to see. Alas, it hasn't been a day since it was rumored to maybe possibly be a thing they're talking about doing one day maybe, and the audience snark is strong as ever. So back in the hat this idea goes, never to be spoken of again, like the last few dozen ideas. Nice job, folks. Way to spook the rabbit.

I too like Zatanna. I would love to see DC do Etrigan the Demon on the big screen. that would be so cool

[Leo656]

I too like Zatanna. I would love to see DC do Etrigan the Demon on the big screen. that would be so cool

Jesus, I don't think a whole bottle of Cialis could get me that hard.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

It's true, but here's the thing: It's all your fault.

No, seriously. It's all because they're stuck in a spot where they can't do a single thing "RIGHT". No matter what they announce, or when, the feedback is always the same: Either "That's gonna be terrible" or "That's never gonna happen."

So they listen to that feedback, put a pin in it, wait for a new trend to arrive that they can cash in on, and try again. Same cycle. Maybe if we collectively stopped sh*tting on things literally 5 years before they're even close to existing, they'd have better confidence as a company. As it is, they're sitting there going, "F*ck, what DO these people want?"

They committed early on to an approach that would, essentially, do everything in a different fashion than what Marvel had already done, which is actually fairly smart if you're a business owner looking to create your own identity for your brand, but not if you're a mark. The marks all said, "No, it HAS to be exactly like Marvel, we won't tolerate anything else." So they now have shifted gears to have every future DC movie be an exact clone of the MCU formula, and as I predicted forever ago, they're getting roasted for that, too, despite the fact that they're only doing what you people told them to.

In between, they have shareholders to answer to, so they HAVE to at least have a few ideas on paper about what projects are coming next, so they can start assigning budgets and whatnot. And every time they try and get a plan going, people yell at them for it. SO, they have to do it AGAIN. "Well, we said we'd give them a _____ movie, and they called us assholes, so maybe we need to do something else?"

I can't remember if it was someone I read from Forbes a while ago, or somewhere else, but it wasn't an "entertainment" media source, it was a business source, and he made a point that makes a ton of sense. It was essentially, that in the big question of, "What do people - and the film industry - actually WANT from WB/DC?", the REAL answer is, "To go away completely", because the marketplace can't sustain TWO huge Comic Book Movie Universes with a hundred movies each, and Marvel got there first so fans and critics were already committed and emotionally invested in it. DC/WB are now "trespassing" on their already-claimed territory, so anything they do is going to be treated with suspicion and hostility. One HAS to live and one HAS to die, because the marketplace (and people's limited attention spans and entertainment dollars) can't equally sustain both, and people really like Downey as Iron Man, so DC/WB has become the big clumsy ox that can't get out of its own way, in people's minds.

Once more, the proof of this is how openly hostile we are to even the IDEA of these movies, anymore, before they're anything more than an idea. This whole "We're gonna yell at and punish them until they finally start doing things RIGHT" approach is proven not to work as a motivator. It doesn't work with professional athletes, and it doesn't work when trying to put a huge film project together, regardless of subject matter.

So no, this movie won't happen, and most of their announced projects won't happen. But it's not as simple as, "They're incompetent"; it's that they have an audience that's impossible to please and also actively rooting for them to fail (even subconsciously). They HAVE to announce new film projects because that's their job; being constantly told "We don't want these movies! We don't want ANY of your movies!" is NOT going to help them pull it together any better or faster, it's actually the entire reason things are so screwed up. They WANT to make a plan; you people don't let them.

Moral of the story: Maybe wait until something's more than a few words on paper before publicly and loudly deciding it's terrible. I know that's the exact opposite of how the internet works, but it's really the way people are supposed to act in general. Even I generally wait until I see a trailer for a film before I allow myself to have any opinion at all.

We've all seen things we loved and things we hated from DC long before "Man of Steel" came out, so this is nothing new or DCEU-related, and everybody has an opinion. But let's be real: They're not the audience for these things, they're just making them, and you folks give them NOTHING to work with so that they can get their finger on a pulse. All anyone in the audience offers is, "Copy Marvel" or "Copy childrens' cartoon shows from 25 years ago," which absolutely shouldn't happen either way. A lot of people who have never had a hand in a billion-dollar franchise, sure have very loud opinions on how it should be done, let's put it that way.

So if we're not gonna come clean and say, "Yeah, I just want them to stop making movies," then maybe let's wait for stuff to become reality before deciding it's worthless or whatever. Then, maybe a few of these things MIGHT even get made and released. It's certainly not an approach that's been tried so far. :roll:

But I don't WANT WB/DC to go away--I want them to have a plan and stick to it. If you a business reacts to every single market dip and rise, they very quickly burn through goodwill and stockholders... and eventually, they have to pull back and recognize "we need a better plan, and we need to STICK TO IT even if the shareholders and competition don't like it for now." Business, at the end of the day, is business. And business needs stability and focus.

Aquaman, Shazam!, Wonder Woman 2, Birds of Prey... I may have issues with their approach to Birds of Prey, but as a whole, looking at that slate, it's gonna happen and it SHOULD happen. It's not how I think it should be done, but they're doing it and have it laid out.

The last time WB/DC concretely rolled out a plan was right around the time of BvS. (And it of course fell by the wayside, given Justice League.)

It looks other branches of the DC On Screen universe are doing much better and more cohesively: their streaming service (although I hate their Titans approach) and their work with CW are both succeeding. But on the big screen, DC is still very much drop-of-a-hat(-or-box-office) reactionary and ADD. THAT'S what a good portion of people hold against them.

...

And then, of course, there ARE the "Superman should smile more!" fans, the "Superman isn't a MURDERER!" fans, and the "MAAAARTHA!" people. :trazz:

[Leo656]

But they CAN'T stick to a plan, or even create one, because the audience yells at them for EVERYTHING. I already went into all that.

They had a perfectly reasonable plan, and nobody let them finish it because they couldn't understand the planned metaphorical symbolism of the ENTIRE DCEU in the first place: "Darkness" as in, the world in the first few films is devoid of hope and unwittingly being prepared as the crucible for Darkseid's revival, which would give way to the "Light" that is Superman and the Justice League, who rose from the darkness (both literal, and each of their own personal "darkness", as in Character Growth and Development) to eventually save us all in the latter films. The "darkness" or whatever that everyone whined about was a storytelling technique that anyone who's read "Final Crisis" (or ANY New Gods stuff, really) would have understood. At the very least, they should understand that Darkseid can only fully manifest when a world is completely gone to sh*t, and since we all knew from nearly the beginning that Darkseid was the planned reveal, I really don't get how it went over anyone's head. But no. "More colors! More jokes! More smiles!"

They asked everyone, "Please be patient. We're getting there in like, 2 more movies. Please, let us tell our story. A lot of this stuff is symbolism, 'Light conquers Darkness' kinda stuff. Our director is a huge nerd, please indulge him. He's read like ten million comics and is sort of an expert on classical mythology and art and how it relates to and informs pop culture. We just wanna give you something different, but it'll be cool, and once it's done all this stuff is gonna make a lot more sense, and might just surprise you. Just let us finish this one thing."

"NO!" the baby yelled, throwing down its rattle. "More colors NOW! Superman doesn't feel human emotions, he's an all-smiling robot who belongs in a fairy tale," and so on. So they had to shift gears halfway through a story they'd already built everything that was planned to come on top of, and the whole sandcastle collapsed on itself. Your fault, not mine. I wanted to see the whole thing through, because I actually knew and understood where it was going. Halfway through the story, they now HAD no story, and everything is just being yanked from the asses of whoever gets the shot this week to turn it all around.

It's circular logic. "The fans can't support DC/WB, because they've been dissatisfied already and want to see some evidence of long-term planning before they'll commit." Counter-argument: "DC/WB can't do that, because you already made them sh*tcan their entire scripted outline of what was to come, because you're impatient and myopic, and they don't have time to just take a 'Time Out' for 10 years and plan ahead from Square One all over again. And every time they offer you anything, you collectively fart on it out of spite." There's nothing they can "make a plan" on top of, if the feedback they get every single time they get an idea is, "That's gonna suck, don't bother".

They don't even get to swing, they're not even in the box; people heckle them just for picking up the bat. It's annoying.

The plan WAS, "DC's version of Lord of the Rings, starring Darkseid as Sauron and the JLA as the Fellowship." Great plan! Should'a stuck to it!
Here's the thing, though: They didn't f*ck it up, you guys did. "Why isn't everyone HAPPY? Why is everything DARK? Why isn't anyone SMILING?" I'll tell you why: Because the story was about a world without heroes, where a group of Gifted but Flawed people had no choice but to find the hero within themselves, to fight an evil that only they could stop. MoS, BvS, and even Wonder Woman, are all to some degree about people struggling to live up to someone else's heroic ideal of them, and ultimately deciding that even though it's hard, and (as BvS makes very strongly clear) even when it seems like people don't WANT you to be a hero, the right thing to do is STILL The Right Thing To Do, so you Do It, regardless of personal cost. No matter the cost, no matter the struggle, no matter what you've lost, no matter how far you've fallen, you can Rise.
You Be The Hero. "Men Are Still Good."

That was the storyline. That was the plan. WAS. Epic. Poignant. Very steeped in the comics lore. Not enough jokes, though, so "worthless trash", to some. Time to start over. "But what do we do now?" "...Copy Marvel, I guess."

That's as close to a plan as they're gonna have from now on. Deal with it. You have no faith in them, but they have no faith in you, either. So all they can do is grasp at straws. Don't like it? Then let them actually start developing an idea before you tell them it's already a lost cause and they shouldn't bother.

They CAN'T "give the people what they want" if they truly and genuinely don't know. All they're hearing right now is, "We just shouldn't do anything; these people just don't like us." But they have to do stuff.

I'm not saying it's an easy thing to fix. I AM saying, this thing people do with movies (ALL movies) where we decide on Day One, WAY before it's anything more than a rumor, that it's already gonna be terrible?

STOP IT.

That's step one. After that, we can see what happens. Once a trailer hits, all bets are off. Before that, they're just ideas, and ideas need room to grow, and they need water to blossom, not salty piss from know-it-all fanboys.

I agree they're far too (over) reactionary as a company and I can't stand it. But the blame's not all on them. Not even close.
--------------

I disagree that they're firing on all cylinders in their other media ventures, either. There's PLENTY of hate to go around about the CW shows, the Titans show, etc., it's just not as big a deal because movies are "for everyone" and that other stuff is more laser-focused on the target demographic, so the conversation about movies is always going to be a lot louder, as more people are involving themselves. Don't get me wrong, those shows are popular, but the numbers also show that they've each already mostly gone as far as they can go, popularity-wise, and the stuff people don't like about each individual show has only gotten "worse" with time, so it's not like the acclaim is universal. It's just fewer people have an opinion than they do about the films. Three super-hero shows on the same network doing a cross-over isn't a great big sign of universal acclaim, it's just A Thing That Makes Sense To Do.

Regardless, TV and film have nothing to do with each other, really, and I feel this constant need to remind people that something working in one area doesn't mean "Just do it that way!" is an option. People shouldn't even compare the shows to the movies; they're not at all the same, nor should they be. Movies based on TV shows are terrible, and TV shows based on movies are terrible. A character can be represented well in each, but that doesn't mean they can be executed the same, and people shouldn't say "Well lookit Dose Guys! Dat's how ya do it!". To quote a certain speedster, "THAT feels like an oversimplification." ;) :trazz:

Anyway, yeah, they're doing alright, but not across the board. Many people are now aware how terrible Supergirl is, for example. :lol: But hey, if nothing else, that means there's hope! :trazz:

[Andrew NDB]

If the raging nerds could even agree among themselves what "proper" interpretations of those two characters even are, doubtless we would be. Sadly, "Reeve and Batman: TAS" are all they'll accept, while anything else gets ripped apart for not merely being exactly that. :roll: The majority of the caterwauling coming from people who don't even read comic books, no less. Always a fun exercise.

My wife and I are big Zatanna marks, so this movie would be something to see. Alas, it hasn't been a day since it was rumored to maybe possibly be a thing they're talking about doing one day maybe, and the audience snark is strong as ever. So back in the hat this idea goes, never to be spoken of again, like the last few dozen ideas. Nice job, folks. Way to spook the rabbit.

It's not about the nerds, it's about WB kowtowing to them.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

It's not about the nerds, it's about WB kowtowing to them.

Exactly.

Warner Brothers is a big boy on the block; they don't HAVE to switch lanes every fvcking movie. It'd be smarter to introduce more gradual course corrections, or have the balls to simply have an executive say "Yeah, you know what? We thought a lot more people would like Batman V Superman. It sucked, and that's on us. We promise you've been heard, and we promise that Justice League will make up for it. Trust us a little longer, okay?"

And then go with their plan. Tweak it, don't trash it.

[drgon78]

I actually do like Batman v Superman except for the whole "Martha" thing.

[Andrew NDB]

BvS would have been great if this was like, movie #7. They're throwing "The Dark Knight Returns" and "The Death of Superman" at us simultaneously and this is like the 2nd movie.

[Leo656]

There's an entire book's worth of Real World Reasons why they had to do things exactly the way they did with BvS, though. People aren't exactly looking at the big picture.

There's only TWO Superman movies that WB has ever wanted to make since 1994: "Death Of", and "Vs. Batman". They were obsessed. Since then, we were absolutely going to get one or the other as the next Superman movie. They occasionally flirted with other ideas, but to them, the "money" was in killing him and resurrecting him (usually in the SAME MOVIE, so if you dislike what we actually got, count your blessings), OR, contriving some reason for him to fight Batman.

All the scripts were terrible, but the idea wasn't going away, because they'd spent a fortune developing BOTH of those ideas simultaneously. When "Superman Returns" under-performed, WB was only further convinced that they HAD to do one, the other, or somehow both of their earlier ideas. When MoS did well, but NOT as well as they would have wanted, and they were already talking about growing a new universe out of it anyway, it seemed like a golden opportunity to finally, once and for all, get BOTH of those ideas into a movie. Until they did, they were NEVER going to fully commit to anything else.

So, to those who say, "They shouldn't have done X," there's a million reasons why they had no choice, and what we actually got was MUCH better than anything they'd put on paper previously for either of those ideas. I, personally, have zero problem with Superman and Batman's initial relationship being hostile and misunderstood - because there's comic book precedent for it - or for Superman's death at Doomsday's hands being the thing that finally lets a distrusting world see him as the hero he was trying to be all along, because that's inspiring. I'm not convinced that you really do need 20 movies of middling and meandering stories before getting to "the good stuff", and it was always going to happen like this one way or the other. What we got was as good as it could ever have been. For me, it's fine. I don't think it was "too early" at all. But again, I'm used to the comics throwing a ton of storyline at me all at once, some of it to be finished Right Now and some of it to be resolved Elsewhere Later On, so in a movie based on the same material, it's merely what I expect.

I know a lot of people hate the movie for "ruining" the Dark Knight Returns storyline, "So they can't actually do a whole movie of it now," but the thing is... that is not a good story and doesn't need its own movie. Taking the visuals and only the loosest inspiration from DKR is exactly what they should have done. Controversial, I know, but Frank Miller is awful at Batman and his dick's been stroked enough over that one mediocre story.

CKD: I'm gonna go ahead and out you as a front-runner, because you were a pretty big fan of BvS until other people convinced you otherwise. Not as much as I am, but you definitely never said "it sucked". :lol: You merely didn't buy Batman's motivation for being such a grouch and never cared for Eisenberg. Aside from that, we always agreed on quite a lot about it.

Because it didn't suck, some people just didn't like it. Big difference. :trazz: I wouldn't expect WB to apologize for something that more people recognize each year was actually better that they wanted to give it credit for at the time. Hindsight is like that. But if anything, they need to apologize for giving Justice League to Whedon, and not at the very least sticking to the original script that had mostly been filmed. Instead, they Superman II'ed it. THAT, I want an apology for. Not BvS, which was fine even if it wasn't "funny" enough for some people. The advertising for "Justice League" promised us one person's film - Snyder's - and gave us a totally different film - Whedon's. That's something they could have been sued for, once upon a time.

Anyway, again, people keep saying "They needed to do ____" and not realizing that the fans being impossible to please is the real crux of the problem. You all hate everything they do, or say they're going to do, so how are they supposed to know what comes next? Seriously. Put the last few movies aside and focus on Right Now: Right NOW, you sh*t on everything, so what are they supposed to do? That's right, keep throwing sh*t at the wall. It's all they CAN do, since you won't meet them halfway anymore.

When they HAD a plan, you all bitched before you even saw it halfway through. So don't cry about it now that they don't have one. Hopefully Aquaman does well. Maybe then they'll get some more confidence, and after that, traction. It's all we can hope for.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

CKD: I'm gonna go ahead and out you as a front-runner, because you were a pretty big fan of BvS until other people convinced you otherwise. Not as much as I am, but you definitely never said "it sucked". :lol: You merely didn't buy Batman's motivation for being such a grouch and never cared for Eisenberg. Aside from that, we always agreed on quite a lot about it.

Critical opinions did influence me, I'll admit it, but seeing it a second time was a problem, too. Like Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Loved it the first time... rewatched it this week, and realized "Oof. The only reason this movie made money was Kowalski."

I'm sometimes oblivious of things the first watching; like Suicide Squad? Liked it less each time I watched it three times in theaters, and am now at a point of "I like this part and this part and Margot Robbie is amazing, but overall, kinduva $hit sandwich." Jared Leto doesn't bother me, though.

My opinion of Batman V Superman has solidified at:

The Martha thing isn't supposed to be dumb, but it comes out dumb
Batman should NOT be trying to literally murder Superman
The overall plan doesn't really work, but you can go with it. Not unlike The Dark Knight, honestly.
And, of course, Jesse Eisenberg is still terrible as Lex Luthor


That's it. I'll rewatch it and enjoy most of it. But I sympathize a lot more than I used to with people who hate it. It should have been better, it wasn't as bad as haters say, and Zach Snyder's vision for Justice League would've been way better. Snyder was never the problem; Warner Brothers was and is.

[Leo656]

- Anything is dumb is you refuse to play along; I personally find it poignant. :trazz:

- I disagree; he's lost his nut. He's afraid of the future, long since abandoned "heroism", and thinks Superman is no different from Zod. Plus, he was being manipulated the whole time. This is one of those, "Let them tell you the story, stop trying to tell them what the story should be" kind of things. It's fine. It's not like him coming back from the brink of darkness to rediscover who he was through Superman's heroic ideal was his ENTIRE arc in the movie, or anything. :trazz:

- Which part? Kinda confused what you mean, but then, I've seen this movie a bunch and most of the "holes" people try and point out really aren't there, so... I'unno, extrapolate.

- Your opinion (which many share, I acknowledge). I wouldn't have cast him, but I think he's fine. He's definitely the only "Truly Evil" Lex we've had in live action. The rest were all goofballs or whiny Daddy's Boys, so he's still ahead on points, high-pitched vocal register or no.
-------------

Ultimately, these are all very small things within the context of a three-hour film. Truly can't say any of it bothered me then, and definitely not now. My only true problem with BvS, dead serious, is that it set up a bunch of stuff we're never getting a payoff to. THAT, to me, is a problem.

We're in agreement on WB's meddling being the root problem, though. Though as I've said, I empathize with their position. To a point. We, as fans, make their jobs incredibly difficult sometimes. Were I in their position, I doubt I'd know how to proceed, either. But then, I really liked their original plan and wanted to see it through. *I* wasn't the one who told them to do a 180 in the first place, because I knew it would lead to anarchy. So now that there IS anarchy, I find it funny that people are mad at them for not having a plan or sticking to it.

It's easy to say, "WB should just ignore the message boards", but that's impossible, and the feedback they're getting on what's good and what's crap, what they should do and not do, is totally schizophrenic.

Like, Zatanna would be a good movie. The fact that even just the idea being floated out there gets a ton of scorn, means that they really just have to keep taking blind swings and hoping someone finally likes something. Not a good way to do business, no. but... well, they had all their eggs in a basket that someone else smacked out of their hands, and now it's a mess.

But on our end, reacting to every DC Movie announcement with "That's stupid" isn't gonna help anything, either. It's really only gonna make everything worse.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

- Anything is dumb is you refuse to play along; I personally find it poignant. :trazz:

- I disagree; he's lost his nut. He's afraid of the future, long since abandoned "heroism", and thinks Superman is no different from Zod. Plus, he was being manipulated the whole time. This is one of those, "Let them tell you the story, stop trying to tell them what the story should be" kind of things. It's fine. It's not like him coming back from the brink of darkness to rediscover who he was through Superman's heroic ideal was his ENTIRE arc in the movie, or anything. :trazz:

- Which part? Kinda confused what you mean, but then, I've seen this movie a bunch and most of the "holes" people try and point out really aren't there, so... I'unno, extrapolate.

- Your opinion (which many share, I acknowledge). I wouldn't have cast him, but I think he's fine. He's definitely the only "Truly Evil" Lex we've had in live action. The rest were all goofballs or whiny Daddy's Boys, so he's still ahead on points, high-pitched vocal register or no.
-------------

Ultimately, these are all very small things within the context of a three-hour film. Truly can't say any of it bothered me then, and definitely not now. My only true problem with BvS, dead serious, is that it set up a bunch of stuff we're never getting a payoff to. THAT, to me, is a problem.

We're in agreement on WB's meddling being the root problem, though. Though as I've said, I empathize with their position. To a point. We, as fans, make their jobs incredibly difficult sometimes. Were I in their position, I doubt I'd know how to proceed, either. But then, I really liked their original plan and wanted to see it through. *I* wasn't the one who told them to do a 180 in the first place, because I knew it would lead to anarchy. So now that there IS anarchy, I find it funny that people are mad at them for not having a plan or sticking to it.

It's easy to say, "WB should just ignore the message boards", but that's impossible, and the feedback they're getting on what's good and what's crap, what they should do and not do, is totally schizophrenic.

Like, Zatanna would be a good movie. The fact that even just the idea being floated out there gets a ton of scorn, means that they really just have to keep taking blind swings and hoping someone finally likes something. Not a good way to do business, no. but... well, they had all their eggs in a basket that someone else smacked out of their hands, and now it's a mess.

But on our end, reacting to every DC Movie announcement with "That's stupid" isn't gonna help anything, either. It's really only gonna make everything worse.

I can't unsee the memes. The scene is ruined for me. :trazz:

I still don't agree with "killer Batman", and it's still my biggest issue. Well, aside from Eisenberg. :trazz: Although I'll admit he has his moments... but most of the time, I hate him as much as I hate ... crap, Ezra Miller as the Flash. Forgot his name for a second.

Basically, the entire plan. Everything proceeds exactly as it should for Lex. Although you've told me the Ultimate Edition improves that stuff, I still haven't seen it.

* * *

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'll stop rolling my eyes every time WB announces the idea of a new film once they start following through more. Talk about a slate, or explicitly announce "Wonder Woman, Harley Quinn, Green Lantern, Aquaman, Batman, and Gorilla Grodd are all priority characters for us. We're not saying you'll never see Superman or Cyborg again, but right now, we just want to focus on Gorilla Grodd."

Basically, I'm saying they need to massively improve their marketing strategy. Do fewer things, better.

[Leo656]

Well if you haven't seen the full movie, then you haven't seen the movie. So, that explains that part. :lol: But yeah, gaps are filled.

As for Batman, you've said you've read "A lonely Place of Dying". So, I'd wager, has Zack Snyder. Now, imagine the beginning chapters of that story, and imagine that Tim Drake never showed up to "rescue" Batman from his post-Jason downward spiral in this universe, and you have the Batman of BvS. That's exactly what it is. Not hard at all to buy into if you remember which books they pulled material from.

Again, some people keep forgetting that Batman's role in this film was "secondary antagonist" rather than "hero". Batman fans, especially, have a hard time with him ever being the "villain" of anything, but he was specifically presented as the tragic villain here. That was the point. He had to start off in a bad place so he could end the movie in a Good Place. That was his entire arc. "Lost hope - found hope - redemption." You can't have redemption if there's nothing to be redeemed for.
-------------

"Do fewer things better" was their plan. They'd only announced so far as "Two-Part Justice League", with Batman, Superman, and Flash movies all likely to follow. When people puked on their plan - again, not a huge list of which was announced, just a few films - THAT's when "Let's just try everything and hope we get lucky!" started.

They're not going backwards now. They can't. People either need to accept their role in not letting them finish their original, Perfectly Good Plan before it was even halfway done, "Because the Blues aren't Blue enough, nobody laughs enough", or let them figure it out without constant mockery and scorn. Of course they're only going to lean into stuff like Harley Quinn, because that's one of the few things they've done that everyone liked. Of course they're gonna follow trends like "All-Women Super-Teams", because that's the hot fad right now in the current cultural and political climate, and they want to appear relevant vs. reactionary. Of course, to us it's BLATANTLY reactionary, but remember, they're not the ones with their fingers on the pulse, they just follow the market and do what "fans", with their dollars, tell them they should do.

Once more, people can get back to me when they've successfully managed a billion-dollar film franchise. Until then, it's all just circle-jerking. I'm quite pissed at DC/WB myself, for a lot of reasons, but I'M not the reason they're in this boat to begin with. :trazz: I wasn't the idiot who told them to hire the Buffy guy, and green-screen over a movie that was already in the can, so that we could learn Superman's trip back from the Great Beyond was "Itchy". :roll:

Should'a left well enough alone when there WAS a consistent vision, even if it was divisive. Now there's NO vision, and we're all f*cked, together. Yaaaaaay. Again, not my fault. I voted for Kodos.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Again, not my fault. I voted for Kodos.

Did... did you just make a Star Trek reference? :teek:

[Leo656]

............Sure.

[ProphetofGanja]

Did... did you just make a Star Trek reference? :teek:

https://louderthanwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/HdzwzQ71-300x300.jpg

[Leo656]

Shhh, I want Cylons to think I'm hip. Don't ruin it. :trazz:

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Shhh, I want Cylons to think I'm hip. Don't ruin it. :trazz:

I'm the one thinking that was a Star Trek reference. Pretty sure I'm the one who needs people to think I'm hip.

Hells yeah, Kodos the Executioner. That was for Andrew, I guess. Or maybe Duckie. :tlol:

[Sumac]

It's true, but here's the thing: It's all your fault.

No, seriously. It's all because they're stuck in a spot where they can't do a single thing "RIGHT". No matter what they announce, or when, the feedback is always the same: Either "That's gonna be terrible" or "That's never gonna happen."

So they listen to that feedback, put a pin in it, wait for a new trend to arrive that they can cash in on, and try again. Same cycle. Maybe if we collectively stopped sh*tting on things literally 5 years before they're even close to existing, they'd have better confidence as a company. As it is, they're sitting there going, "F*ck, what DO these people want?"

They committed early on to an approach that would, essentially, do everything in a different fashion than what Marvel had already done, which is actually fairly smart if you're a business owner looking to create your own identity for your brand, but not if you're a mark. The marks all said, "No, it HAS to be exactly like Marvel, we won't tolerate anything else." So they now have shifted gears to have every future DC movie be an exact clone of the MCU formula, and as I predicted forever ago, they're getting roasted for that, too, despite the fact that they're only doing what you people told them to.

In between, they have shareholders to answer to, so they HAVE to at least have a few ideas on paper about what projects are coming next, so they can start assigning budgets and whatnot. And every time they try and get a plan going, people yell at them for it. SO, they have to do it AGAIN. "Well, we said we'd give them a _____ movie, and they called us assholes, so maybe we need to do something else?"

I can't remember if it was someone I read from Forbes a while ago, or somewhere else, but it wasn't an "entertainment" media source, it was a business source, and he made a point that makes a ton of sense. It was essentially, that in the big question of, "What do people - and the film industry - actually WANT from WB/DC?", the REAL answer is, "To go away completely", because the marketplace can't sustain TWO huge Comic Book Movie Universes with a hundred movies each, and Marvel got there first so fans and critics were already committed and emotionally invested in it. DC/WB are now "trespassing" on their already-claimed territory, so anything they do is going to be treated with suspicion and hostility. One HAS to live and one HAS to die, because the marketplace (and people's limited attention spans and entertainment dollars) can't equally sustain both, and people really like Downey as Iron Man, so DC/WB has become the big clumsy ox that can't get out of its own way, in people's minds.

Once more, the proof of this is how openly hostile we are to even the IDEA of these movies, anymore, before they're anything more than an idea. This whole "We're gonna yell at and punish them until they finally start doing things RIGHT" approach is proven not to work as a motivator. It doesn't work with professional athletes, and it doesn't work when trying to put a huge film project together, regardless of subject matter.

So no, this movie won't happen, and most of their announced projects won't happen. But it's not as simple as, "They're incompetent"; it's that they have an audience that's impossible to please and also actively rooting for them to fail (even subconsciously). They HAVE to announce new film projects because that's their job; being constantly told "We don't want these movies! We don't want ANY of your movies!" is NOT going to help them pull it together any better or faster, it's actually the entire reason things are so screwed up. They WANT to make a plan; you people don't let them.

Moral of the story: Maybe wait until something's more than a few words on paper before publicly and loudly deciding it's terrible. I know that's the exact opposite of how the internet works, but it's really the way people are supposed to act in general. Even I generally wait until I see a trailer for a film before I allow myself to have any opinion at all.

We've all seen things we loved and things we hated from DC long before "Man of Steel" came out, so this is nothing new or DCEU-related, and everybody has an opinion. But let's be real: They're not the audience for these things, they're just making them, and you folks give them NOTHING to work with so that they can get their finger on a pulse. All anyone in the audience offers is, "Copy Marvel" or "Copy childrens' cartoon shows from 25 years ago," which absolutely shouldn't happen either way. A lot of people who have never had a hand in a billion-dollar franchise, sure have very loud opinions on how it should be done, let's put it that way.

So if we're not gonna come clean and say, "Yeah, I just want them to stop making movies," then maybe let's wait for stuff to become reality before deciding it's worthless or whatever. Then, maybe a few of these things MIGHT even get made and released. It's certainly not an approach that's been tried so far. :roll:
Nah, the reason for this reaction is that DC/WB were incompetent with their movies first and foremost, than it had snowballed into pile of hatred.

Even MOS was questionable, Batman v Superman was a pile of grimdark **** and Justice League was not much better it seems.

This is what happens when you put future of your biggest properties in the hands of questionably talented person like Snyder, who has "his own vision", which borderlines on the teenage grimdark edge.

After that naturally people will have doubts.

[Autbot_Benz]

This is what happens when you put future of your biggest properties in the hands of questionably talented person like Snyder, who has "his own vision", which borderlines on the teenage grimdark edge.

After that naturally people will have doubts.

This x1000 Snyder was a cancer on the DC Properties. I mean look how much better Wonder Woman was and how decent Aquaman looks. No Snyder means better movie.

[Sumac]

If the raging nerds could even agree among themselves what "proper" interpretations of those two characters even are, doubtless we would be. Sadly, "Reeve and Batman: TAS" are all they'll accept, while anything else gets ripped apart for not merely being exactly that. :roll: The majority of the caterwauling coming from people who don't even read comic books, no less. Always a fun exercise.
Nerds don't decide anything, when it comes to those movies. And they don't decide whether it will succeed or not.

But they CAN'T stick to a plan, or even create one, because the audience yells at them for EVERYTHING. I already went into all that.
It's their fault for starting their "cinematic universe" from the mediocre movies with questionable interpretations of the character.
Not everyone can offer their own version of the character and make it good. Snyder certainly had failed in that regard and DC rips what he had sowed.

There's an entire book's worth of Real World Reasons why they had to do things exactly the way they did with BvS, though. People aren't exactly looking at the big picture.
Sorry, I call ******** on this one.
They had all freedom in the world to do whatever they wanted. They decided to stick with Snyder's vision, because, they didn't want to be like Marvel.

If your main ideology "not to be like something else" - than the result usually sucks ass, because, you should not operate from position "not to be like something", you should offer something of a substance beside it and DC had spectacularly failed to do so.

- Anything is dumb is you refuse to play along; I personally find it poignant. :trazz:
Sorry, I won't "dumb myself" down to play along with idiotic story and inept style of the director.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

This x1000 Snyder was a cancer on the DC Properties. I mean look how much better Wonder Woman was and how decent Aquaman looks. No Snyder means better movie.

Okay, sure, Aquaman looks great... but that's all following on from Snyder's original vision for the character in film, remember? Aqua Drogo?

I hope Wan knocks it out of the park, but he's building on Snyder's foundation. Same as Wonder Woman.

Hate on Snyder all you want; I sure don't agree with a lot of his choices. But you gotta thank him for some baller casting choices, too.

[Andrew NDB]

I know a lot of people hate the movie for "ruining" the Dark Knight Returns storyline, "So they can't actually do a whole movie of it now,"

I feel like "The Dark Knight Rises" was as much of "The Dark Knight Returns" as I'd ever like to see. Hits a lot of the same notes.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I feel like "The Dark Knight Rises" was as much of "The Dark Knight Returns" as I'd ever like to see. Hits a lot of the same notes.

I'm not a fan of "Dark Knight Returns" at all. Don't like that old grumpy Bruce, don't like the Superman/Batman stuff, don't like Alfred dying, fvcking HATE Carrie Goshdamn Kelly.

What I DO love is all of the Joker stuff. Especially Joker breaking his own neck to frame Batman and to win their eternal contest. Give me THAT in a fvcking Batman movie, man. :tgrin:

[Original TMNT Cartoon Fan]

I don't recall her. Was she in any of the Superfriends or Justice League cartoons?

[Leo656]

This is what happens when you put future of your biggest properties in the hands of questionably talented person like Snyder, who has "his own vision", which borderlines on the teenage grimdark edge.

After that naturally people will have doubts.

That "vision" was simply to make movies that resembled the COMICS they were based on, rather than cartoon shows. It was the right approach, people who don't read comics simply didn't care for it, because they're wedded to things like Super-Friends and Batman: TAS.

I know I'm not gonna win with this crowd, but that's in fact what happened. The DCU is an R-Rated universe and has been since 1986, maybe even a little earlier. A director isn't "wrong" for trying to mimic the style, tone, and stories from the medium they're supposedly adapting. The absolute fiercest criticism I've seen/heard doesn't come from comic book readers, it in fact comes from people who, sometimes boastfully, proclaim they've never read a comic book. Or, sometimes, people who read comics in the 70s when they were for young children, but not since. Yet they proclaim, "I know these characters. I know those stories." No, not from cartoons or films from the 1970s, you don't.

Everyone gets an opinion, but a lot of those opinions are simply ignorant. People judging something not for what it is, but for not being something it wasn't even trying to be, which is silly.

It's like the parents who ignorantly railed against the 1990 TMNT film, for being "too dark" and "nothing like the cartoon show." Well, it wasn't trying to be, it was rather almost trying to be the opposite. I'm honestly surprised sometimes that this crowd, especially, can't recognize that same effect in action, because it's the exact same phenomenon. "That's not like the cartoons!" "RIGHT, because it's based on the COMICS, and the comics look like THIS."

Same sh*t, different day/property. :trazz:
------------

As far as what kind of "freedom" they had, I've been closely following the production of Superman films my entire life, including reading several books on the subject. I know what decisions were made, and why, and what This Guy and That Guy were thinking. It's all been explored and extrapolated on ad nauseum. WB was never going to move past the "Death Of" and "Vs. Batman" stories until they finally filmed them, and they saw a chance to do it all in one shot. They already put it aside twice, for "Returns" and "MoS", and the "Just Okay" returns on each one only gave the studio more confidence that they HAD to film these ideas that they'd been kicking around since 1994.

WB is not a "creative freedom" company, and never has been. WB is a, "We paid a lot of money for this script, and it's been sitting in a drawer for __ years; might as well squeeze a buck out of it because we paid for it" company. Especially when "new" ideas like Superman Returns don't do as well as expected. They don't go "back to the drawing board", they start pulling old stuff out of that drawer because it's cheaper. That's the business.

If anything, the fact that they finally scratched that particular itch means they can finally get something else going. But trust me, what we actually got was light years ahead of ANY of the previous BvS or Doomsday film ideas. I've seen scripts and script excerpts; people have no idea how bad we would have had it if they made those movies in 1998, 2003, or whenever.

Tone is subjective. The fact that the movies they ALMOST made instead of this one would have been terrible is NOT subjective. You'd still be complaining; not because they were "dark" movies, but because they were stupid ones, in the "Batman and Robin" vein, which is far worse.
--------

You can have an opinion, but you can't have your own facts. :)

I feel like "The Dark Knight Rises" was as much of "The Dark Knight Returns" as I'd ever like to see. Hits a lot of the same notes.

I still need to see Batman riding a horse in live action before I shuffle off this mortal coil. :lol: Otherwise yeah, close enough.

[Sumac]

That "vision" was simply to make movies that resembled the COMICS they were based on, rather than cartoon shows. It was the right approach, people who don't read comics simply didn't care for it, because they're wedded to things like Super-Friends and Batman: TAS.
I don't think at the time of MOS release, anyone cared about Super-Friends or used it as a point of reference.
Also, I don't think that Superman comic books are about gloomy guy who looks like he really pissed off and wants to break your neck just for looking at him wrong way.
Of course, a lot of it has to do with director's vision. Which brings us back to the main wrench in this gear.

I know I'm not gonna win with this crowd, but that's in fact what happened. The DCU is an R-Rated universe and has been since 1986, maybe even a little earlier. A director isn't "wrong" for trying to mimic the style, tone, and stories from the medium they're supposedly adapting. The absolute fiercest criticism I've seen/heard doesn't come from comic book readers, it in fact comes from people who, sometimes boastfully, proclaim they've never read a comic book. Or, sometimes, people who read comics in the 70s when they were for young children, but not since. Yet they proclaim, "I know these characters. I know those stories." No, not from cartoons or films from the 1970s, you don't.
Being "R" rated doesn't automatically mean "full of desaturated colors and depression".
You can make a mature movie, with colors and interesting, heck, even fun characters. The problem is that Snyder was not interested in doing so and people can take only so much bleakness. When paired with questionable casting choices (Luthor) and stupid plot shenanigans (Martha!!) it all becomes a shitshow of an epic proportions.
Also, adaptations shouldn't be judged on the merit of how close they are to the source material. They should judged on their execution.

It's like the parents who ignorantly railed against the 1990 TMNT film, for being "too dark" and "nothing like the cartoon show." Well, it wasn't trying to be, it was rather almost trying to be the opposite. I'm honestly surprised sometimes that this crowd, especially, can't recognize that same effect in action, because it's the exact same phenomenon. "That's not like the cartoons!" "RIGHT, because it's based on the COMICS, and the comics look like THIS."
And despite this TMNT'90 is still a classic and, arguably on of the best adaptations of the TMNT on the big screen, while BVS is not. Maybe the problem is not with criticism about how close it was to, whatever people had perceived as a source material?

WB is not a "creative freedom" company, and never has been. WB is a, "We paid a lot of money for this script, and it's been sitting in a drawer for __ years; might as well squeeze a buck out of it because we paid for it" company. Especially when "new" ideas like Superman Returns don't do as well as expected. They don't go "back to the drawing board", they start pulling old stuff out of that drawer because it's cheaper. That's the business.
Yet, they gave Snyder full freedom to do as he pleases.
And, I think, they gave a lot of freedom to director of the Wonder Woman.

If anything, the fact that they finally scratched that particular itch means they can finally get something else going. But trust me, what we actually got was light years ahead of ANY of the previous BvS or Doomsday film ideas. I've seen scripts and script excerpts; people have no idea how bad we would have had it if they made those movies in 1998, 2003, or whenever.
Superman fighting giant spider was questionable, but some of the scripts from middle and late 90-s sound VERY intriguing. At least on paper they were much better than whatever BVS had delivered.

Tone is subjective.
No.
Any sane person can tell "fun tone" from the "bleak tone".

The fact that the movies they ALMOST made instead of this one would have been terrible is NOT subjective.
No.
Since they have never been made its impossible to say, what kind of movies they would have been.

At this point it's like comparing how thing looks in your imagination versus how thing looks in someone else's. It's pointless.

You'd still be complaining; not because they were "dark" movies, but because they were stupid ones, in the "Batman and Robin" vein, which is far worse.
If they were executed as Batman & Robin, than, yes, I, and many other people, would have complained.

You can have an opinion, but you can't have your own facts. :)
But this is exactly what you are doing, by stating that "movies which were never released would have been terrible". It's an opinion, not a fact.

[Leo656]

Also, I don't think that Superman comic books are about gloomy guy who looks like he really pissed off and wants to break your neck just for looking at him wrong way.

This right here is the whole problem: You misinterpret lots of things in the movie(s) AND never read a Superman comic. The two feed into each other.

I have to go to work, so I'll keep it brief:

- At no point did Clark in either MoS or BvS "want to break anyone's neck for looking at him funny", and that kind of hyperbole is what derails these conversations. He killed one guy - Zod - who pretty much exists in the modern lore so he can die at Clark's hand. That's his ultimate role.

Killing ONE guy, after he says "I'm gonna murder your entire world, one by one" isn't equitable with everyone who disliked the movie's description of what they saw in Superman's character. They just offer fairy-tale suggestions to how it might have ended differently. Not relevant. In the comics, Superman kills Zod. Thus, in the film, he - Spoiler! - Kills Zod. That's what is supposed to happen.

Aside from that, he got mad at a truck driver. OOOOOOOHHHHH, what a whiny bitch! :roll:

- No, the comics are not about "a gloomy guy" or a "whiny emo" or whatever, and neither are the films.

People refuse to allow that both MoS and BvS are set in Year One of the Superman story. And if you DO read the comics, you know that a lot of stuff about his early years is consistent, despite several reimaginings and reboots. Such as:

- A lot of angst about why he's "different" and where he fits into the world.
- Periods of traveling the world, soul-searching, trying to figure out who he is and what his ultimate purpose is.
- Relief - and jubilation - once he finds out the answers.
- A new struggle, that being how exactly this "Superman" thing works. Because there's no blueprint and he suddenly has to do the hardest job anyone's ever done, with only his intuition to guide him.
- Several years of acting as "Superman" before anyone really figures him out or learns to trust him. To wit, in most versions of the origin story, the police, the government, and the general population are all quite concerned - and even scared - about this "Superman" guy, because he seems to do whatever he wants and is also, seemingly unstoppable.

Again, I UNDERSTAND that the Reeve films, and the cartoon shows, all skip over this stuff. They all jump right into, "He's Superman, he's got a cape, and he's gonna get all those kittens out of trees!" because it's an easier story, but that's NOT how his story has ever actually been told, outside of those very kid-centric mediums.

All the way back to 1938, a lot of the best Superman stories in the comics were about him LEARNING how to "Be Superman". And even then, growing and evolving as Superman. "Am I doing enough? Am I doing too much? Should I even do anything? I mean I have to do SOMEthing, but... I wish I knew it was really the 'right' thing." These themes have been constant in Superman stories for decades.

Zack Snyder made a deliberate choice to show that part of the story, specifically because other films ignored it. Well, you can say, "I don't like Year One Superman, I want him fully-formed, always smiling, everyone loves him just because he exists," but that's not at all true to the material. And you're not speaking to what's "Best", you're only speaking to your preference.

To that end, you talk about "Execution". Well, again, taste is subjective. You, as a non-comics fan, think MoS was lousy, based on whatever you yourself see as "correct". Meanwhile, I'm over here with over 10,000 comics, almost half of them Superman related, and from where I stand it really couldn't have done a much better job of telling Superman's origin. You sound like you mean, "It must be unanimously praised, or it's bad by default." And again, that's not how things work. Your criteria and mine about "proper execution" are going to be totally different, because we value totally different things.

It's frankly absurd to even suggest that fidelity to the source material "doesn't matter". It absolutely does matter; if you're going to call something "_______", but you're not going to honor and respect what it's based on, then you shouldn't even bother.

Obviously we differ in our values on what ANY movie should be shooting for, but it would be nice if people would say, "Movie X didn't meet my specific criteria, I didn't care for it", and leave it at that, instead of, "Movie X is worthless and the director's an idiot and everyone who likes it is a moron BECAUSE it doesn't meet MY specific criteria." It's not only the worst kind of criticism - because the speaker assumes they speak for ALL - but it's extremely arrogant.

To wit, I don't care for the Marvel flicks. Too silly. They're not "bad" movies, even the "worst" are competently made, they just don't do anything for me. I don't go around saying, as some do, "________ is the biggest piece of sh*t ever!" just because *I* don't care for it. I respect that they're competently made, I respect that other people like them, BUT, "Other people liking a thing" has never made any difference to what I think of it. So, I don't watch them, but I don't sh*t on them or the people who enjoy them, I just point out "This wasn't made for me" and move on. That takes a certain maturity that people who spend too much time on the internet talking about movies seem to lack, though. Everything has to be Best or Worst ever no matter what it is. Very silly.

In closing, if you think that Tim Burton fiasco would've been a good Superman movie, well... I wouldn't share that opinion out loud, brother. At least keep it away from me. :trazz:
--------------

Part of me is slightly curious what you think is "proper" for a Superman movie, since you apparently have a very strong opinion about it, and I wouldn't mind having that conversation somewhere else, but not in a public wank-fest. Feel free to PM me, but only if you're actually interested in a dialog.

[Sumac]

This right here is the whole problem: You misinterpret lots of things in the movie(s) AND never read a Superman comic. The two feed into each other.
I've read some Superman comic book, but very few and I never had interest in his characters.
On the other hand, I can tell bad movie from the good one.

- At no point did Clark in either MoS or BvS "want to break anyone's neck for looking at him funny", and that kind of hyperbole is what derails these conversations. He killed one guy - Zod - who pretty much exists in the modern lore so he can die at Clark's hand. That's his ultimate role.
Yes, this is hyperbole, but it has foundation under it. At no point in the movie, I've had a feeling looking at Clark, that he is a this "good and kind-earted person, champion of justice who I can trust", so to speak. He comes of as unfriendly, de-attached and borderline psychotic.
I won't deny, that it's my personal interpretation of his character, however, I've heard a lot of people who disliked MOS / BVS made similar statements.

Killing ONE guy, after he says "I'm gonna murder your entire world, one by one" isn't equitable with everyone who disliked the movie's description of what they saw in Superman's character. They just offer fairy-tale suggestions to how it might have ended differently. Not relevant. In the comics, Superman kills Zod. Thus, in the film, he - Spoiler! - Kills Zod. That's what is supposed to happen.
The thing is, it's not just about murder of Zod. It's how it was setup and how Clark was portrayed in the whole movie.
Those factors play serious role in why people think negatively about this moment.

People refuse to allow that both MoS and BvS are set in Year One of the Superman story. And if you DO read the comics, you know that a lot of stuff about his early years is consistent, despite several reimaginings and reboots. Such as:

- A lot of angst about why he's "different" and where he fits into the world.
- Periods of traveling the world, soul-searching, trying to figure out who he is and what his ultimate purpose is.
- Relief - and jubilation - once he finds out the answers.
- A new struggle, that being how exactly this "Superman" thing works. Because there's no blueprint and he suddenly has to do the hardest job anyone's ever done, with only his intuition to guide him.
- Several years of acting as "Superman" before anyone really figures him out or learns to trust him. To wit, in most versions of the origin story, the police, the government, and the general population are all quite concerned - and even scared - about this "Superman" guy, because he seems to do whatever he wants and is also, seemingly unstoppable.
Thing is, once again, it's not about the plot itself.
It's how it all those things have been presented in the movie itself.
Quality of execution makes the difference between good and bad movie and MOS and BVS had problems when it came to the execution.

To put up a simple example: Batman'89 and Nolan's Batmans are 2 very different take on the same idea. Even though fundamentally they are about the same character.

Again, I UNDERSTAND that the Reeve films, and the cartoon shows, all skip over this stuff. They all jump right into, "He's Superman, he's got a cape, and he's gonna get all those kittens out of trees!" because it's an easier story, but that's NOT how his story has ever actually been told, outside of those very kid-centric mediums.
Yet, Nolan's take on Bruce Wayne youth was incredibly succesful. So, you can't say that movies that go deep into origin story and feelings of the character always fail.
Maybe the reason was not with the story itself, but with its execution?

All the way back to 1938, a lot of the best Superman stories in the comics were about him LEARNING how to "Be Superman". And even then, growing and evolving as Superman. "Am I doing enough? Am I doing too much? Should I even do anything? I mean I have to do SOMEthing, but... I wish I knew it was really the 'right' thing." These themes have been constant in Superman stories for decades.

Zack Snyder made a deliberate choice to show that part of the story, specifically because other films ignored it. Well, you can say, "I don't like Year One Superman, I want him fully-formed, always smiling, everyone loves him just because he exists," but that's not at all true to the material. And you're not speaking to what's "Best", you're only speaking to your preference.
I want A GOOD MOVIE about Superman, regardless of its story.
I don't care whether his portrayal alligns with my expectations or not, as long as his character and the story presented in a good and engaging way.

To that end, you talk about "Execution". Well, again, taste is subjective. You, as a non-comics fan, think MoS was lousy, based on whatever you yourself see as "correct". Meanwhile, I'm over here with over 10,000 comics, almost half of them Superman related, and from where I stand it really couldn't have done a much better job of telling Superman's origin. You sound like you mean, "It must be unanimously praised, or it's bad by default." And again, that's not how things work. Your criteria and mine about "proper execution" are going to be totally different, because we value totally different things.
For me "proper execution" depends on whether I find story and characters engaging and entertaining (not in a sense being funny, but in a sense if those characters are interesting to watch.). I don't care whether its praised or not, though, if a lot people say that they have problems with exectuion, than it might be the case.

MOS and BVS were neither engaging nor entertaining. They were both boring and self-indulging attempts of the director to cram his vision of characters and visuals over actual substance and character development, resulting in pretentious, shallow, boring and depressive experience.

It's frankly absurd to even suggest that fidelity to the source material "doesn't matter". It absolutely does matter; if you're going to call something "_______", but you're not going to honor and respect what it's based on, then you shouldn't even bother.
By this margin Batman 1989 or X-Men should be considered bad movies, however...

Obviously we differ in our values on what ANY movie should be shooting for, but it would be nice if people would say, "Movie X didn't meet my specific criteria, I didn't care for it", and leave it at that, instead of, "Movie X is worthless and the director's an idiot and everyone who likes it is a moron BECAUSE it doesn't meet MY specific criteria." It's not only the worst kind of criticism - because the speaker assumes they speak for ALL - but it's extremely arrogant.
I don't assume I am speaking for all.
I am speaking for myself, as I always do.
My criteria for a good movie...it should be a good movie.

To wit, I don't care for the Marvel flicks. Too silly. They're not "bad" movies, even the "worst" are competently made, they just don't do anything for me. I don't go around saying, as some do, "________ is the biggest piece of sh*t ever!" just because *I* don't care for it. I respect that they're competently made, I respect that other people like them, BUT, "Other people liking a thing" has never made any difference to what I think of it. So, I don't watch them, but I don't sh*t on them or the people who enjoy them, I just point out "This wasn't made for me" and move on. That takes a certain maturity that people who spend too much time on the internet talking about movies seem to lack, though. Everything has to be Best or Worst ever no matter what it is. Very silly.
I agree about Marvel movies.
They are competently made, but they are safe, shallow and ultimately sterile.

In closing, if you think that Tim Burton fiasco would've been a good Superman movie, well... I wouldn't share that opinion out loud, brother. At least keep it away from me. :trazz:
I don't know whether it would have been good or not, since it has never been made.
My personal motto - there are no bad ideas, they are only bad executions. Afterall, Superman is a story about super guy in blue tights from another planet. Yet, some people managed to turn silly and basic premise into foundation of the mythology, not very disimilar to the myths of an ancient Greece.

Part of me is slightly curious what you think is "proper" for a Superman movie, since you apparently have a very strong opinion about it, and I wouldn't mind having that conversation somewhere else, but not in a public wank-fest. Feel free to PM me, but only if you're actually interested in a dialog.
It should be fun.

[Leo656]

Yeah, you're plainly one of those, "I didn't like a thing = Thing is Bad" people, which does indeed imply speaking for others besides yourself. Because you say so, over and over. I've seen you go on about MANY things, so it's less about this movie or that movie, and more about your general "Anything I don't like is crap, don't you dare argue" manner of carrying yourself. You never say, "I personally think _____", it's always, "______ is terrible, anyone who disagrees is stupid." Such as, "I can tell a good movie from a bad one". That's once again assuming you speak for everyone. You can only tell what's Good or Bad to YOU, same as anyone else. Even Siskel and Ebert got it wrong a whole bunch, which is why they later had to re-review several "classic" movies that they'd originally sh*t on.

Because taste is subjective.

I do it sometimes, rather tongue-in-cheek, but in a manner so over-the-top it's implicit that I'm at least half-kidding. And I'm legitimately befuddled when people can't tell the difference.

You had it right with "This is what I personally think/feel". The rest is pointless.
-------------------

As for MoS specifically, I make it a point not to have Superman conversations with people who don't "get" the character, period. It's no different than trying to explain wrestling to a non-wrestling fan; you either "get it" or you don't, and you're not going to convince someone who doesn't "get it" what they're not getting or why they should. It only leads to arguing, and such conversations are to be avoided, in my opinion. You didn't like a movie about a character you don't like anyway; color me shocked. :lol: We shouldn't even be talking about this, then. You shouldn't have such a strong opinion about something you don't even care about, to the point you chide people at length about their own opinions/feelings. Especially when they've got more of a connection to or are more familiar with the subject matter than you do/are. C'mon.

Example: I've seen far too many of those insipid Depp/Pirate movies, because my wife loves them and has, shall we say, "questionable" taste of her own. I have NO impulse to go around getting involved in conversations about them with other people, not even to tell them I think those movies suck. What does it accomplish? I wasn't the audience, and I didn't like the movie(s). It doesn't get me hard to go around telling people who enjoy them, "Your movie sucks, here's why." It's elitist, it's arrogant, and it takes all the fun (what little there is) out of discussing these (ultimately trivial and pointless) things. I have nothing to add to that conversation; thus, I stay out of that conversation and let those people have their space. It's Their Thing, not My Thing. I absolutely HATE Their Thing, but the fact that I don't need to sh*t on them for it, or bring it up in conversation at all, displays a certain maturity that many people lack.

Like, I get it, guy. A movie that wasn't aimed at you anyway, failed to grab you. That doesn't at all mean they made a bad movie, just that you didn't care for it. Which SHOULD be okay, but apparently it isn't.
------------------

This isn't just about you, by the way; more a problem I have with "internet people" in general, nowadays, with their bold declarations of "Only my opinion matters". So try not to take it TOO personally, but I'm definitely worn out on your act in general. You're entirely too stand-offish in situations that don't call for it. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but you could stand to work on that.

Again, we can - and should - carry this on privately going forward, as I'm hearing rumblings from people about you and I as it is. SO, I suggest we leave this and the other thread(s) alone and continue whatever philosophical disagreements we have in PM. I have no problem with that, even though it's clear we disagree on a lot. That's entirely up to you. I find that most people really just want to make a big public show of things rather than have an actual conversation, which is disappointing. But I guess we'll see.

[Sumac]

Yeah, you're plainly one of those, "I didn't like a thing = Thing is Bad" people, which does indeed imply speaking for others besides yourself. Because you say so, over and over. I've seen you go on about MANY things, so it's less about this movie or that movie, and more about your general "Anything I don't like is crap, don't you dare argue" manner of carrying yourself. You never say, "I personally think _____", it's always, "______ is terrible, anyone who disagrees is stupid." Such as, "I can tell a good movie from a bad one". That's once again assuming you speak for everyone. You can only tell what's Good or Bad to YOU, same as anyone else. Even Siskel and Ebert got it wrong a whole bunch, which is why they later had to re-review several "classic" movies that they'd originally sh*t on.
Are you trolling me?

I've said that I speak only for myself.

If you like this movie - more power to you. However, I will say why I don't think your favorite movie is a good one and you can do the same about something that I like.

Pretending that my opinion about the movie is somehow "the only truth", in my opinion, but also invalidates yours, is ridiculous.

Because taste is subjective.
Taste is subjective, quality is not.

As for MoS specifically, I make it a point not to have Superman conversations with people who don't "get" the character, period. It's no different than trying to explain wrestling to a non-wrestling fan; you either "get it" or you don't, and you're not going to convince someone who doesn't "get it" what they're not getting or why they should. It only leads to arguing, and such conversations are to be avoided, in my opinion. You didn't like a movie about a character you don't like anyway; color me shocked. :lol: We shouldn't even be talking about this, then. You shouldn't have such a strong opinion about something you don't even care about, to the point you chide people at length about their own opinions/feelings. Especially when they've got more of a connection to or are more familiar with the subject matter than you do/are. C'mon.
Where I have chided you for your opinion about the movie?
Also, I recommend to remember, that movies like MOS and BVS are (supposedly) made for everyone. Not only hardcore fans of characters. And as such, anyone can say something about them.

To put it simply - movies like that are not made for your personal pleasure and whether you are big fan of them or not, it doesn't mean that everyone who haven't read 10k issues of Superman should be silent about them.

Example: I've seen far too many of those insipid Depp/Pirate movies, because my wife loves them and has, shall we say, "questionable" taste of her own. I have NO impulse to go around getting involved in conversations about them with other people, not even to tell them I think those movies suck. What does it accomplish? I wasn't the audience, and I didn't like the movie(s). It doesn't get me hard to go around telling people who enjoy them, "Your movie sucks, here's why." It's elitist, it's arrogant, and it takes all the fun (what little there is) out of discussing these (ultimately trivial and pointless) things. I have nothing to add to that conversation; thus, I stay out of that conversation and let those people have their space. It's Their Thing, not My Thing. I absolutely HATE Their Thing, but the fact that I don't need to sh*t on them for it, or bring it up in conversation at all, displays a certain maturity that many people lack.
You are once again stepping on your toes: you say that ******** on POTC would have been arrogant and elitist, yet, you don't consider arrogant and elitist to **** on people who dislike your favorite movies and call them out, because, their dare to have their own opinion wihtout reading Superman comic books or having DEEP knowledge of his character.

To put it bluntly: your defense of MOS is an epitome of arrogance and elitism.

Like, I get it, guy. A movie that wasn't aimed at you anyway, failed to grab you. That doesn't at all mean they made a bad movie, just that you didn't care for it. Which SHOULD be okay, but apparently it isn't.
And Plan 6 from Outer Space had just failed to grab anyone.
Sure.

Again, we can - and should - carry this on privately going forward, as I'm hearing rumblings from people about you and I as it is. SO, I suggest we leave this and the other thread(s) alone and continue whatever philosophical disagreements we have in PM. I have no problem with that, even though it's clear we disagree on a lot. That's entirely up to you. I find that most people really just want to make a big public show of things rather than have an actual conversation, which is disappointing. But I guess we'll see.
I can do both.
As a wrestling fan you should like those.

[Leo656]

Taste is subjective, quality is not.


:lol: Yeah, we're done. I absolutely don't talk to people who say ridiculous things like that. What a tart.

And I'm NOT a "wrestling fan", buddy. I wrestle. For ten years. Which means, like many others, that I absolutely cannot STAND wrestling. OR wrestling fans. They're about as stupid as TMNT fans, although it changes depending on the day.

Regardless, wow. Stalk someone else. I keep telling you, I don't wanna talk to you on account of ... lots of sh*t. Many people here have been Reporting you for weeks due to harassment, and now I'm forced to do the same thing. No Means NO, dipsh*t. You're ignorant, standoffish, and a troll. And I don't f*cking waste time with people like that.

You're not on this forum to converse or exchange ideas with anyone, you're here to insult people and tell them why your taste is superior to theirs. And unlike me, you're not kidding around when you do it. Intolerable.

Save your words, I'm not indulging you any further. Every single time I see one of your posts directed at me, it's a Harassment report. That's a promise.

[Andrew NDB]

Many people here have been Reporting you for weeks due to harassment

What? Who? Plastron? That was all FAKE harassment, look at the posts.

Save your words, I'm not indulging you any further. Every single time I see one of your posts directed at me, it's a Harassment report. That's a promise.

I think I know your favorite movie now...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bf/Snitch_Poster.jpg/220px-Snitch_Poster.jpg

[Leo656]

I was told by the higher-ups after last time that I'm supposed to do that instead of saying how I really feel. Their house, their rules.

And no, not plas. I won't speak for who because it's private. If they want to "out" themselves, they can. But it's actually several people.

:lol: As if I'd ever sit through a movie with The Rock in it. You're a card.

[Sumac]

:lol: Yeah, we're done. I absolutely don't talk to people who say ridiculous things like that. What a tart.
Oki-dokey.
I can have less pretentious pompous elitists in my life as well.

Regardless, wow. Stalk someone else. I keep telling you, I don't wanna talk to you on account of ... lots of sh*t. Many people here have been Reporting you for weeks due to harassment, and now I'm forced to do the same thing. No Means NO, dipsh*t. You're ignorant, standoffish, and a troll. And I don't f*cking waste time with people like that.

Save your words, I'm not indulging you any further. Every single time I see one of your posts directed at me, it's a Harassment report. That's a promise.
I won't put much value in this, since it sounds like a drunk babbling and comes from a person who was so butthurt about people talking **** about his favorite character that he had left forum for some time.

Better invest in some rage management courses.

Also, I've never insulted you.
You had perceived as insult banter about movies and criticism of your opinion, which tell me more about your ego and you as a person.

[Leo656]

One more time. Omitting names of films or characters so it can be whittled down to bare facts.

- You insist - repeatedly - that a director somehow "misunderstood" or "butchered" a character that you, yourself, admit to having little to no understanding of, previously.

- I state a simple fact, that said director's interpretation was heavily-inspired by the very same comic books that he, I, and many others have read, which are openly available for others to look at, as well, if they're genuinely curious as to what went into the film's presentation. So that whether they like it or not, they can at least have an informed opinion.

- Thus, it is absolutely impossible for his presentation to be "incorrect", as you have claimed. It was simply not what you wanted. Which is fine in and of itself. It may very well be against the public's general expectation, and that is understandable. But you used words like "incorrect", "misunderstood", etc., to describe his approach to the work, and then insisted that the fact it's simply keeping close to the source material is somehow "meaningless". It may be meaningless to you, but not to others.

It has very little to do with the movie itself, at this point, and very much to do with your casual dismissal of facts, combined with the implicit attitude that comes across that people who disagree that said movie is terrible by your own criteria are stupid. I genuinely don't care if you like a movie, and never went into the conversation to try and change your mind. You aired a specific grievance - that the director didn't know what he was doing and thus, in your eyes, did a terrible job - and I merely tried to illustrate that in fact, he had a very clear idea of what he was doing, and that's why some people do in fact think he did a good job.
------------------------------

And if you truly don't think any of your replies to me across several threads have been either smarmy or condescending in tone, I truly don't know what to say. Oh well.

[Krutch]

Man of Steel conversations will never die at The Technodrome, it seems :lol:

Leo, could you explain away an issue I have with the movie for me?

I don't have a problem with Superman killing Zod, or anyone, if the situation calls for it. I mean my favourite Superman comic, Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, ends with Supes committing murder. My trouble with the way it was handled in Man of Steel was there was no setup for the payoff - which Zack treated as the climax of the movie.

Was there any real insight given on how Clark views the act of killing before this? I havent seen the movie in a few years (and likely never will again) but I can only think of Jonathan's talk about the school bus - but that's a wildly different conversation and it doesn't at all apply to the situation.

Again, this is why I like Zack as an idea man and a visualist but not as a storyteller. Even if there is stuff in the movie that addressed this, I shouldn't have to dig that deep to find some sort of setup for the payoff of the climax of the movie. That's poorly constructed storytelling.

If the counter argument is that the act of killing isn't his big decision but it's the his choice to protect the people at all costs, then even that isn't framed properly. And the way it was shot (dropping to his knees and shouting in anguish) you could argue he actually regrets doing it or at the very least, still isn't confident in his actions. Which is the point of the movie, right? So, to me, it's either a movie which structurally doesn't understand its own climax or a movie about a guy who still hasn't learned anything. Either way, its a very muddled story - which is probably why it has a hard time connecting to alot of people.

Not knocking on anyone for liking this movie - or any movie. Just curious how, as someone who likes the movie, you feel this was addressed within the story given.

[Leo656]

My break's over so we can talk about it later or another time. I might send you a PM, so as to avoid further toxicity poisoning what really should merely be simple conversation.

If I don't get to it feel free to remind me later. Next few days are likely to be hectic for obvious reasons. Preferably poke me on my "wall"; my PM box is full (again) and things are most likely being bounced, so that'll most likely get my attention faster than a PM.

[Sumac]

- You insist - repeatedly - that a director somehow "misunderstood" or "butchered" a character that you, yourself, admit to having little to no understanding of, previously.
I don't need to read 10k comic books to appreacite, like or understand a character.
If movie adaptation makes character unlikable - I am not obligate to give a **** how this character was represented in the source material.

- I state a simple fact, that said director's interpretation was heavily-inspired by the very same comic books that he, I, and many others have read, which are openly available for others to look at, as well, if they're genuinely curious as to what went into the film's presentation. So that whether they like it or not, they can at least have an informed opinion.
You have seemingly stuck on the idea "good source material = awesome adaptation". It's not always works like that.
Source material might be good, but Snyder's interpretation of it was mediocre in opinion of large amount of people, including those who also read 10k comic books about Superpups.

- Thus, it is absolutely impossible for his presentation to be "incorrect", as you have claimed. It was simply not what you wanted. Which is fine in and of itself. It may very well be against the public's general expectation, and that is understandable. But you used words like "incorrect", "misunderstood", etc., to describe his approach to the work, and then insisted that the fact it's simply keeping close to the source material is somehow "meaningless". It may be meaningless to you, but not to others.
No, it is very much possible to make an "incorrect" adaptation by misreading intentions of the work, as well, as ****ing up plot, pacing and performance of the actors.

It has very little to do with the movie itself, at this point, and very much to do with your casual dismissal of facts, combined with the implicit attitude that comes across that people who disagree that said movie is terrible by your own criteria are stupid. I genuinely don't care if you like a movie, and never went into the conversation to try and change your mind. You aired a specific grievance - that the director didn't know what he was doing and thus, in your eyes, did a terrible job - and I merely tried to illustrate that in fact, he had a very clear idea of what he was doing, and that's why some people do in fact think he did a good job.
Very clear idea =/= not a good idea.
He also had a very clear on what he was doing in Sucker Punch, for example. Or Watchman. Snyder is an "idea man", but his ideas more often than not, come in conflict with everything else in the work.

Schumacher also had a very clear idea of what he was doing.

[Autbot_Benz]

DC Films Taps ‘Promising Young Woman’ Director Emerald Fennell to Write Zatanna Superhero Movie (EXCLUSIVE)

https://variety.com/2021/film/news/emerald-fennell-zatanna-movie-1234931976/

Emerald Fennell, the Oscar-nominated director of “Promising Young Woman,” is taking on a different kind of vigilante. She has been tapped to write “Zatanna,” a big-screen adaptation of the DC Comics heroine.

The movie, from Warner Bros.’ DC Films and J.J. Abrams’ Bad Robot Productions, is set to be released theatrically.

The upcoming installment in the DC Extended Universe will be Zatanna’s first franchise appearance. She is known for her involvement with the Justice League, though the character has never appeared in a DC movie. Serinda Swan previously portrayed Zatanna, marking the superhero’s live-action debut, on later seasons of The CW show “Smallville.” The role of Zatanna has not been cast yet.

[Leo656]

What's the over/under on whether or not she's black?

[Autbot_Benz]

What's the over/under on whether or not she's black?

good question hopefully not but knowing dc most likely

[Leo656]

And fishnets stockings are "too sexy", so that's out. :ohwell:

[Autbot_Benz]

if they don't go with the OG Zatanna outfit with the fishnet stockings they might go with her Justice League Dark look

https://i.imgur.com/NHyQKPX.jpg

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

And fishnets stockings are "too sexy", so that's out. :ohwell:

If Zatanna doesn't show off some damn nice legs in fishnets, I will write a STRONGLY worded letter to my congressman.

[Andrew NDB]

So they screwed with Constantine on Legends of Tomorrow for absolutely no reason, then.

[Autbot_Benz]

So they screwed with Constantine on Legends of Tomorrow for absolutely no reason, then.

Basically and now we get Keanu Reeves Constantine instead?


I deleted the article because I think THR got Zatanna mixed up with Madam Zanadu that got cancelled with Constantine