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

Amy Adams is a great actress, but her Lois Lane has got to be the most poorly written of all of them. She is far too stupid to be Lois Lane.

 

I'm preparing to do a 40th Anniversary review of Superman: The Movie, much like I did with all the MCU films leading up to Avengers: Infinity War in the Marvel thread and I came across a 2016 Hollywood Reporter article that features an interview with Dick Donner. Donner recounts casting Margot Kidder and using her poor eyesight as a clumsy characteristic for Lois Lane during filming:

There was so much nuance to Kidder's performance as Lois Lane. The TV Lois Lanes have the advantage of being fleshed out over the course of several episodes, if not, seasons.

I've said numerous times, that Superman: The Movie is my favorite comic book movie of all time and always will be. Additionally, the film set the template for super hero film making with the MCU uses quite well.

Amy Adams' Lois Lane is "thirsty." Moreover, she has pretty much zero interaction with Clark Kent, at least the traditional in disguise Clark Kent. Moreover, she never had the opportunity to see Clark Kent as Clark Kent. She knew from the start that Clark Kent is "Superman," so her Lois Lane never had the dynamic of interacting with "Smallville" like every other Lois Lane.

 

Teri Hatcher's Lois has the best writing.

As for Reeve's Superman movies, Superman II was the best one, the first one got a bizarre ending.

 

Um...I don't know if we saw the same movie, but she single-handedly backtracked Kal-El's movements from Canada all the way to his daddy's grave. All of the other Lois Lanes have been distracted by a ***** pair of glasses, dude. That she was poorly written in BvS and even JL, no doubt.

 

They tried too hard to write her as a "strong and useful lady".

I don't like the MoS Lois at all because she was able to stay unharmed after so many crazy scenes. But she was ok in BVS, she did what Batman should have done, if Batman was as smart as her the whole stupid conflict would not have happened.

 

Wow. We're getting an Alfred tv show. I know people saw the upcoming Metropolis as low tier since it was about Lois and Lex with no Supes.

But who would have thought we'd get a young Alfred Pennyworth in the S.A.S. show.

 

She was able to backtrack like she did because she was dealing with Clark as himself, after seeing him and his abilities. In most other versions, she's dealing with Superman and Clark Kent as two separate people. She focuses on Superman and interviews him, where he tells her what he knows and she doesn't bother to investigate further. In the Donner film, she gets the interview, but he dodges around revealing either of his real names. She only starts to find out because she suspects something odd about not seeing them together. In the Donner version of the second film, she goes to great lengths and finally tricks him into admitting it. In the Lester version, he does it for her. It also helped that in that continuity, he had spent twelve years in the Fortress and the helicopter rescue was his public debut.

In the comics, he was either Superboy publicly or privately. In the stories from 1986-2003, she knew that he was the mysterious guardian angel that was helping people, before his public debut. But there wasn't anything to connect him to Smallville since many of his rescues did not occur where Clark Kent was at during his world travels. He also only had one job during that period and wasn't using a pool of aliases on his resume, which helped her backtrack like in the MOS film. The closest she ever came to finding out before he revealed himself, was when she visited Smallville and saw Superman hugging Lana Lang in the Kent's kitchen. But a lie from Jonathan about adopting Kal-El at the same time Clark Kent was born, tripped her up. Plus a photo of both men together.

No, it means that Clark needed to figure out another solution. Like I said, he could have done other things that would look normal and not raise suspicions like lifting a bus would.

Not credible witnesses. And no proof that she existed other than a photo which made her look like a cosplayer. Clark, on the other hand, had already done things that raise questions and lifting a bus would be a tipping point.

Except it wasn't all Snyder's doing. DC has been moving that way since 2010. All Snyder did was apply it to the films.

Simple. When DC gave the Batman television rights to Fox in 1964, they failed to put in a clause that would result in the rights reverting back after a period of time. Like the ones Marvel put into play. As a result, in the years since then, Fox has had say on a television series happening or not. When "The Adventures Of Superman" came about, it was put into syndication and was sponsored by Kellogg's who had a long history with Superman on radio. When the feature films began, Warner Brothers had now owned DC and they made a deal with the Salkinds to let them fund all Superman film and television products, even lending them out to other studios, for 25 years. Even extending to spin-offs. "Superman V" and "The Adventures Of Superboy" were both cancelled when Warner Brothers took back the rights in 1992, as they wanted to profit from any future projects due to the success of "Batman" in 1989. In subsequent years, Warner Brothers has put out four shows since they were sole rights holder, unlike with Batman. The only Batman related project was "Birds Of Prey" which did feature Batman characters appearing throughout. How exactly that worked out, I don't know.

 

Zack Snyder Confirms The INJUSTICE Video Game Was One Of The Inspirations For His DC Cinematic Universe

I always felt this was the case, having read every issue of the Injustice comic book series; that Lois was the key to preventing the "Injustice" incarnation of Superman, rather than the "Pet Sematary" of Superman featured in Justice League. The Injustice Superman was basically Magog from the Kingdom Come story. And this confirmation from Snyder furthers my belief that the "Knightmare" scene and every other Batman dreamscape should have been cut from Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice.

 

I think I saw the first episode Birds of Prey and that was only to see how they did the Killing Joke bit (I believe they got Mark Hamill to voice Joker for that one shot too)

oh yeah, there could have been a Superman 5 (I tired googling Superman V and all I got was BvS) but it almost was a thing! Maybe woulda been better than nuclear man

https://www.newsarama.com/5528-writer-details-the-superman-movie-5-that-never-came-to-be.html

"The intent was to leapfrog over Superman III and especially IV, and return the series to the high mark achieved in 1 and 2," Bates told Newsarama. "[It was] our desire to do a fully developed, balls-out science fiction story pitting Superman and Brainiac against each other mano a mano."

Edit: Gak! Script here! Script here!

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/movies/superman-reborn-script.pdf

 

"Maybe" mean maybe he should let them die, it got nothing to do with solution or not.

We got tons of soldiers from both sides saw such a big fight. Many many people saw her fight in that little town. Clark only got a bunch of drowning kids.

Before the final fight, Wonder Woman had openly shown up on the battleground to fight the Germans, defeated the Germans in a small town and caused the town to applause for her. Openly fought the German officer to death before Ares had shown up.

And nobody gave it a crap about. Clark's doing was pretty much nothing compare to that.

It's not what Geoff Johns' doing, he even criticized MoS for being to dark. It failed horribly, even DC themselves had admitted it.

Injustice worked because it was a "what if" "else world" story. It was something new compare to the main world, but to DCEU, it needs to build up its main universe first.

 

That's bad?

 

Yes, it does. Because Jonathan follows up maybe with a reminder that he needs to keep that part of him a secret. Maybe means he doesn't know, but there needs to be a way to do it without exposing himself. You focus on the word, I focus on the context.

Still not enough in WWI, which would have been chalked up to battle fatigue or shell shock.

Everyone died who saw it, save for her friends and the soldiers who were busy loading up the plane that killed Steve. Doctor Poison was the only other witness and no one would believe her.

And yet, we're having it again in "Doomsday Clock" by Geoff Johns and Christopher Priest just did a stint with it in "The People Vs The Justice League".

Apparently Slowpoke doesn't know that with the exception of 1949 through 1969, Lois Lane has always been a strong and useful woman. Hell, she rescued her husband when he was powerless in Superman: The Man Of Steel #63.

Spoiler

Snyder Lois was pretty much along those same lines.

 

he also has a history of creepy objectification.

 

No, "MAYBE" was the clear answer which he thought Clark MAYBE should have let those kids drown, which is way below average morality.

Otherwise it's a solid "NO" then whatever his advice is.

What do you mean not enough?

A bunch of soldiers from both sides>>>>>>>>>>>A bunch of drowning kids or some bystanders in the torando.

No, the town was destroyed but no proof showed everyone was dead. There are soldiers in the first battle and in the final battle. The big chunk of lightning came after Steve's death.

On Clark's occasion we got a bunch of drowning kids, that's all.

Are you saying some kids in deep danger and panic>>>>> WWI soldiers, townfolks and Dr. Poison?

Doesn't matter he disagreed to put such tone on screen, even DC themselves have admitted it.

http://comicbook.com/dc/2017/09/29/geoff-johns-man-of-steel-lighter-tone-zack-snyder/

 

I don't understand someone could be so stubborn to still arguing for what even WB and DC themselves had admitted for their mistakes.

https://movieweb.com/new-dc-movies-more-lightness-warner-bros-ceo/

http://comicbook.com/dc/2017/08/24/wonder-woman-patty-jenkins-explains-lighter-tone/

WB CEO, DC executives and even the actors had admitted it, Wonder Woman was success because it had put away the stupid "world hates superheroes". Had it been about how she had abandoned humanity, it would have been another failure.

 

So, how many DCEU films will we get this year? Aquaman comes out next, right?
This autumn, I think.

 

Alfred Prequel Series! Alfred! Prequel! Series! 10 episodes! Direct to series over! Premium cable! By Gotham folk!

Really!

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/l...ets-new-batman-prequel-series-at-epix-1112339

(Geeze, so much for me wishing for more Batman TV shows...)

 

Dec. 21.

 

Nor do we, don't worry.

...

I'm unsure about the need for an Alfred prequel. If you can't/won't do batman, do Nightwing.

 

Well, first off: Alfred is by far the best thing about a pretty great Gotham TV show.

But second -- it's been quite a while, but wasn't there a pretty good episode of B:TAS that somewhat hinted (or outright covered) "Alfred as SAS" that was well-regarded, which is what they might build off of?

 

Reading the article, Pennyworth will be completely separate from Gotham, not the same universe. Which is a very odd distinction to make as it's from the Gotham showrunner.

Because yes, I'd like a younger version of Doctor Who's son's Alfred.

 

Which feels like the largest gap between DC films in a long time. Perhaps that's a good thing that the studio is taking its time with the release of the film to make sure it's the best version of the film they could put into theaters. I have faith in James Wan and I would tend to think Wan's version of the character will be less AquaBrah and more Aquaman, rightful King of Atlantis. At least, that's what I hope we get. I sure by SDCC, there will be at least a teaser for Aquaman.

I'd suspect by December 21, we'll get a teaser or full trailer for Shazam! I'm looking forward to the film despite the leaked set photos and the internet backlash towards the costume. I can't remember if this film is set within the DCFU or in a separate universe, as I recall the early reports that is was separate. But, perhaps that changed in the efforts to lighten and brighten up the DCFU.

I thought I couldn't any less for a TV show than the announced "Metropolis" show featuring Lois Lane and Lex Luthor, but the announcement of a Young Alfred TV show has proved me wrong. I just really can't find any interest in seeing it, especially if it's on the DC paid streaming service. To me, both shows sound like very inexpensive produced series that are trying to cash in on the name brand recognition. But, the Krypton series may change my mind whenever I get around to binge watching the first season.

I posted in the Arrow thread that I wish DC would make a Batman Beyond live action series. I would more ready to hand money over to DC's streaming service for that. I always pictured Tom Sellick as old man Bruce Wayne and Dylan O'Brien as Terry McGinnis.

 

BVS was the largest, and it was sadly a huge mistake by DC.

I wonder after Thor and Black Panther, ppl are gonna get tired of "struggle between relatives to the throne" in superhero movies, how is Aquaman going to give some fresh new elements?

 

Well, it's the similarities but the differences in the characters that will play a part in the audiences' experiences with the film. I mean, Thor: Ragnarok was an action comedy for the most part that was clearly fictional. Black Panther carried the weight of being socially and culturally responsible, and came off very grounded in reality as many came away from the film identifying with Killmonger.

Aquaman offers a character in limbo between two worlds even though he is from both. And that's a huge difference between Thor and T'Challa. Author Curry is much like an Arthurian tale, in that he grew up not knowing of his royal blood but then it comes crashing down on him, and with it comes an enormous burden of responsibility.

 

It's going to take a lot of effort to make it good.

How are they going to balance the 2 villains, Black Mantra and Ocean Master?