Amph Waiting For Superman: Gunnverse DCU/Elseworlds (New Trailer!)

Tom Hardy developing DC Vertigo's 100 Bullets into movie

 

NBC Orders Pilot For DC Comics Workplace Comedy POWERLESS

 

So... Damage Control rip-off?

 

Possible. Being on NBC would limit Green Arrow and the Flash from visiting, or Supergirl.

 

I remember reading a Booster Gold series, but I don't remember for which network.

Anyone heard any updates on the Titans tv show?

 

CW President Says No More DC Comics Spinoffs After LEGENDS OF TOMORROW



CW President Mark Pedowitz told reporters during the TCA tour that the new Legends of Tomorrow show would be the last DC Comics spinoff for the foreseeable future. But what happens after Arrow season 5? Will Legends of Tomorrow continue beyond one season?

 

Good.

 

Um, "good" what exactly? No more spinoffs? Yeah, that'd be good. The CW DC superhero scene is very crowded as it is already. As for shows falling, well, after last season, Arrow has left me a bit ambivalent. I'm not so enthused about this Justice League Lite thing. But it'd be a shame if Flash were to stumble on it's second year.

 

It's good that they don't want to oversaturate their market.

 

No more CW DC spin offs that's good. Work with the characters you have and build those.

 

The only problem I see with this is that Marvel has shown willingness to do their smaller characters (no pun intended, in the case of Ant-Man) on the big screen with some B- and C-list "street level" heroes as small-format NetFlix and the non-heroes as a TV series (changing only this year as SHIELD goes full Secret Warriors) and DC still doesn't have a grasp on how they want to do their major heroes on the big screen but does have a very, very good grasp of what they're doing on TV -- with some fairly major heroes.

I mean, at minimum, Green Arrow may be B-list, but The Flash and Supergirl (tbf, not aired yet) are, imo, probably still A-listers (or at least A/B-listers).

I guess there's some possible discussion on how DC could get their one A-list "street level" character (Batman) in such good movies and Sony can't do the same with the #1 comic book character of all time (Spider-Man) who is also a "street-level" guy, but that's less relevant to this DC movie vs. TV thing.

 

I should have clarified: I am not a fan of the CW's interpretations of DC (but I haven't liked any interpretation of Oliver Queen since the New 52.) What you're saying makes perfect sense and I agree.

 

Wait, why don't you like The Flash at least?

Are you The2ndQuest ? Have I ever seen the both of you at the same time?

 

Nope.

I'm notoriously picky with any fannish content, was always more of a Marvel girl to DC. To be fair I am not happy with the vast majority of comics / tv / film both companies are releasing now.

I only watched that one episode of the Flash for Hamill and he was the only character I liked (which hasn't changed since 1991.)

 

That's a fair point. Are you sure you're Juliet? Has someone died?

 

Is Superman DC Cinematic Universe's Hulk?



Here's the transcript of the video for the YouTube impaired:

 

Yeah... I take reports like that (much like the Miller one) with a massive grain of salt.

Do you know why the Hulk doesn't get his own movie? Because it's very, very difficult to write a movie about the pathos that the character feels and when he's the Hulk, he's essentially mindless (not really, obvs, but close enough). He works in a team setting because the pathos of the human side can be controlled with other people and the monster side can be somewhat directed. It doesn't lend itself necessarily to the solos (though Planet Hulk would be awesome).

Superman, on the other hand, has none of those issues. You should be able to tell solo stories about Superman because there shouldn't be any pathos with him and he should be able to stop all of the things that the "lesser" heroes like, say, Batman couldn't. But he's also the ultimate team player -- Batman says "Hey, come to Gotham I need your help with this one thing" and Clark would be there in 8.2 seconds. Ollie says "Hey, come to Starling City I need your help with this one thing" and Clark would be there in 8.2 seconds -- and he knows when more brains or more magic or simply more people are needed to stop bigger and badder things.

He's the ******* Superman!!!

 

Yeah, I very much doubt there won't ever been a sequel to Man of Steel.

I really there's a sequel to Man of Steel and George Miller or someone that's the opposite of Zack Snyder's directing style gets to helm it. I would really love to see Henry Cavill put his imprint on the character.

 

It'll probably just be a few years. ... Unless they reboot.

 

Me too. Aaaaand this is where we stop agreeing.

Bah! After growing up on Hulk comics and the Hulk TV series, I have to point out that successful, moving Hulk stories have been told in a variety of media for decades. There's no key difference between comics and films that would preclude a good Hulk film being made. Pathos is something cinema does very well, and what's more, the CBS TV series nailed this aspect of the character time and again, in a quite cinematic way. If the concern is a mindless Hulk, then it may be time to move onto the Grey Hulk persona, whose typical lines of dialogue are along the lines of "Inevitably, gentlemen, Hulk will smash."

Again -- sorry! -- I have to disagree. Even the pre-Crisis Superman had pathos. Angst. Pain of both the mental and physical kinds. And it's not a very compelling film when the hero is so powerful that even his emotions are invincible. Donner and Reeve handled the character's anger and grief extremely well.

 

The Hulk TV show was very, very cheesy -- I loved it, but it would not survive modern cinema (or possibly even modern TV). And the reason also is that he was constantly running away from turning into the Hulk -- that doesn't make for a compelling cinematic experience, though both The Avengers and (I thought to a lesser extent) The Incredible Hulk built-in the catharisis for that transformation at the end when it happened.

It's just not exciting when it's not a serialized format where you know you're going to have a stranger wandering into a new town, looking to lay low, getting mixed up in trouble, turning into the Hulk, having to move on, and then play the Lonely Man. I mean, that's fine! And my younger self loved it! But it would suck as a cinematic experience. Again, Planet Hulk solves all this but we need some reason for an articulate Hulk which we don't have yet. Having a mindless beast rampaging can be cathartic or it can just be annoying.

And Superman had pathos, sure. But not about being Superman. It's always "how can I save everyone" or something like that. That's what I meant.

 

If they make a Superman movie and Metallo is the villain I'll probably just scream at the screen "WHY" for two hours straight. If the Miller rumour is true and he does get the job, get Immortan Joe to voice DARKSEID.

Seriously, JUST DO DARKSEID.

 

Well... it depends on what you mean by "cheesy". What struck me most on my recent (last winter) foray into the first two seasons of The Incredible Hulk, (1977-78 and 78-79) was the cinema verite style this program clearly strove to achieve. It's not always successful -- it's a product of its time, its low budget and its perceived demographic -- but overall it struck a verisimilitude rarely seen in superhero fare even today. Now, if by cheesy you mean "limited in effects technology and occasionally producing a laughable effect", I'll grant you that. But its style and mission statement were the opposite of "cheesy", in my view. It was almost documentarian in its technique.

Yes, okay, I see what you mean! I recall pre-Crisis Supes being torn up about Krypton having died; in the Fortress he kept a film or animation of its explosion on a loop, driving himself to come up with some way of traveling time or dimension to save his home planet. He was quite angsty about that, for example. So I agree with you there.