Geoff Johns, is he DC Films New Hope?

[nyyarod]

If Geoff actually has a plan for the universe and makes everything cohesive then sure, he's definitely the hope! I'm going to remain casually optimistic and pray JL is the movie that makes me feel happy when I leave the theater.

 

[metaphysician]

Optimism has to be earned?

Yes. If there's nothing to be optimistic about, the optimism is undeserved.

That said, there's at least one reason to be optimistic about Johns: he's not Snyder. Whatever his faults, they are lesser compared to Captain "I like axes".

 

[metaphysician]

That's a good point because even as disappointing as TIH was, it was still well received as far as reviews went and it helped push the universe forward without having to go back and fix and correct some glaring problems.

Also, and this doesn't get enough emphasis, Marvel didn't need to do crash panic editing room shenanigans in response to Incredible Hulk, because they didn't have another movie filming at the time, and didn't have a direct sequel happening the next year. This being because Marvel, in the early days, didn't have an insanely rushed schedule. Movies could, and did, get delayed.

Part of what is killing the DCEU is that WB has given themselves such a tight schedule that there is no time to react to anything. By the time BvS was in its second week, they had the next *three* movies either filming or past filming, all of which drew notably elements from BvS. There was no room to maneuver, no ability to delay movies, or incorporate feedback from the prior movie into preproduction.

 

[MbJ]

Optimism has to be earned?

That highlights one of the problems with Snyder as a storyteller and it's something I've said about him in the past: he answers questions nobody else asked.

His justification for the bleak tone in Superman, capping off with Superman committing an extra judicial execution, was that we needed a rationalization and explanation as to why Superman in the comics refuses to take a life.

...Was anyone but Zack Snyder really asking that?

Even now with the Justice League. All the talk about it was that it meant to cap off the arc begun in Man of Steel and how this would finally be the big birth of superheroism in the DCEU or whatever. Why? Why did we need to wait three movies (possibly four before they ditched the plan of making it a 2-parter like Infinity War) to see the superheroes actually acting like superheroes and not just dour sociopaths?

In addition to just needing a solid game plan instead of throwing everything against the wall and hoping something sticks, I think a major thing Johns needs to do is keep the writers and directors on tighter leashes.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

This is why I can't take these arguments seriously. They're all stooped in hyperbole. Dour sociopaths? Internet, please.

 

[wild child]

That highlights one of the problems with Snyder as a storyteller and it's something I've said about him in the past: he answers questions nobody else asked.

His justification for the bleak tone in Superman, capping off with Superman committing an extra judicial execution, was that we needed a rationalization and explanation as to why Superman in the comics refuses to take a life.

...Was anyone but Zack Snyder really asking that?

Even now with the Justice League. All the talk about it was that it meant to cap off the arc begun in Man of Steel and how this would finally be the big birth of superheroism in the DCEU or whatever. Why? Why did we need to wait three movies (possibly four before they ditched the plan of making it a 2-parter like Infinity War) to see the superheroes actually acting like superheroes and not just dour sociopaths?

In addition to just needing a solid game plan instead of throwing everything against the wall and hoping something sticks, I think a major thing Johns needs to do is keep the writers and directors on tighter leashes.

What do superheroes do? They save people? Check. They fight crime? Check. You should rewatch the movie if you think DCCU hasn't given us superheroes already.

I freaking hate the mentality of "you can only do things one way". Yes, let's wait for them to comment on their fav candy bar and make jokes during fight scenes so we can really call them superheroes.

 

[BH/HHH]

What do superheroes do? They save people? Check. They fight crime? Check. You should rewatch the movie if you think DCCU hasn't given us superheroes already.

I freaking hate the mentality of "you can only do things one way". Yes, let's wait for them to comment on their fav candy bar and make jokes during fight scenes so we can really call them superheroes.

 

[MbJ]

What do superheroes do?

Not execute their opponents, brand them in the face, or callously ignore dying civilians around them, ideally.

I freaking hate the mentality of "you can only do things one way".

That's a very poor strawman and has always been. Nobody ever said Marvel's way is the only way to make a superhero movie. Just that the DCEU's method of making them clearly isn't working, and it seems the folks in charge of the franchise agree.

Enjoy the films if you do. That's great. But this pretentious notion that the only reason people didn't like Dawn of Justice is because it didn't have jokes or slapstick gags ignores that there are plenty of successful movies that had darker and gritty tones. They just happened to be more competently made than any of the three DCEU movies so far.

 

[jmc]

What do superheroes do? They save people? Check. They fight crime? Check. You should rewatch the movie if you think DCCU hasn't given us superheroes already.

I freaking hate the mentality of "you can only do things one way". Yes, let's wait for them to comment on their fav candy bar and make jokes during fight scenes so we can really call them superheroes.

Just because a character does those things doesn't make them likeable. It's how they do those things that matters. It's not just their actions, it's how they go about doing those actions that defines them. If these character weren't Superman and Batman you'll probably see why people don't think these guys are heroes in this series.

 

[Timebomb]

Thank you MbJ and jmc. It all has to do with execution and characterization. You can do anything if it's well done And there is a valid reason for it.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

Yeah, I agree. Snapping Zod's neck would've been a lot more palatable if there was smile and wink somewhere in there afterwards. It would've been just like Superman II when Reeves smiled like a psychopath after killing Terrence Stamp's Zod.

But since Superman cried and yelled after taking a life it was too dark and dour. He should have just winked at the camera and flew off with Lois for some wholesome implied sex 70's style at the Fortress of Solitude.

 

[Boom]

Or maybe write the third act in such a way that it doesn't end with Superman having to snap a dude's neck at all, as Christopher Nolan suggested. Crazy thought.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

Jor-El said "we didn't go to Earth because we were as much a product of Krypton's failure as Zod". It was chose Earth or Krypton moment for Kal-El. He chose Earth. And Zod chose death. He says "You will have to kill me" or some variation of it like three times. He was born and bred to be warrior and he wanted to go out like one.

 

[BH/HHH]

Yeah, I agree. Snapping Zod's neck would've been a lot more palatable if there was smile and wink somewhere in there afterwards. It would've been just like Superman II when Reeves smiled like a psychopath after killing Terrence Stamp's Zod.

But since Superman cried and yelled after taking a life it was too dark and dour. He should have just winked at the camera and flew off with Lois for some wholesome implied sex 70's style at the Fortress of Solitude.

Or maybe write the third act in such a way that it doesn't end with Superman having to snap a dude's neck at all, as Christopher Nolan suggested. Crazy thought.

I take it you're one of the people who thought that Superman shouldn't be written into that situation? I really don't get that logic. I hate playing it safe for the sake of it.

Also add to that Superman has been in situations like that in the comics and killed.

Jor-El said "we didn't go to Earth because we were as much a product of Krypton's failure as Zod". It was chose Earth or Krypton moment for Kal-El. He chose Earth. And Zod chose death. He says "You will have to kill me" or some variation of it like three times. He was born and bred to be warrior and he wanted to go out like one.

 

[batfreakforever]

I had no problems with the dceu films so I've always got hope.

 

[MbJ]

I hate playing it safe for the sake of it.

And I hate being needlessly edgy for the sake of it.

The juvenile need to make sure everyone knows how edgy and adult the characters are has been a major flaw in both Snyder films so far, which the studio and Johns seem to agree with.

 

[Boom]

I take it you're one of the people who thought that Superman shouldn't be written into that situation? I really don't get that logic. I hate playing it safe for the sake of it.

Also add to that Superman has been in situations like that in the comics and killed.

Provide the right circumstances, and you can write just about any character into a situation where they have to kill someone. Doesn't mean we necessarily should.

I'll never begrudge filmmakers for wanting to humanize these characters by giving them flaws and insecurities. At the same time, they are superheroes meant to celebrate the best in humanity. They are champions of the human spirit. They're archetypal in that regard. So no, I'd rather not sit in a movie theater with children and have to watch Superman snap someone's neck because the filmmakers thought it was an edgy way of "growing up" the character. If that means I want something "safe," then so be it.

To each their own.

 

[The Joker]

Just because a character does those things doesn't make them likeable. It's how they do those things that matters. It's not just their actions, it's how they go about doing those actions that defines them. If these character weren't Superman and Batman you'll probably see why people don't think these guys are heroes in this series.

You're talking to a banned member.

Thank you MbJ and jmc. It all has to do with execution and characterization. You can do anything if it's well done And there is a valid reason for it.

Exactly.

Or maybe write the third act in such a way that it doesn't end with Superman having to snap a dude's neck at all, as Christopher Nolan suggested. Crazy thought.

Too much sound logic there.

Jor-El said "we didn't go to Earth because we were as much a product of Krypton's failure as Zod". It was chose Earth or Krypton moment for Kal-El. He chose Earth. And Zod chose death. He says "You will have to kill me" or some variation of it like three times. He was born and bred to be warrior and he wanted to go out like one.

So because the villain wants the hero to kill him he should oblige?

 

[BH/HHH]

And I hate being needlessly edgy for the sake of it.

The juvenile need to make sure everyone knows how edgy and adult the characters are has been a major flaw in both Snyder films so far, which the studio and Johns seem to agree with.

I disagree, I don't think it was edgy for the sake of it either, thematically and narratively it's the correct ending for Man of Steel.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

So because the villain wants the hero to kill him he should oblige?

If he won't stop committing the genocide of 7 billion people and there isn't any Kryptonite around to weaken him, yes.

 

[flickchick85]

This is NOT another Man of Steel thread, folks.

 

[MbJ]

I'll never begrudge filmmakers for wanting to humanize these characters by giving them flaws and insecurities. At the same time, they are superheroes meant to celebrate the best in humanity. They are champions of the human spirit. They're archetypal in that regard. So no, I'd rather not sit in a movie theater with children and have to watch Superman snap someone's neck because the filmmakers thought it was an edgy way of "growing up" the character. If that means I want something "safe," then so be it.

To each their own.

Bringing it back to this thread's point (before it turned into another discussion about how Man of Steel was totally awesome) I would say this is a major issue that needs to be corrected.

Marvel famously has had issues with certain directors. There have been high profile incidents of directors angrily walking away from the franchise with bad things to say about the studio. Too much oversight. Meddling behind the scenes. Forcing the director to compromise their vision. It's earned the company bad press and Kevin Feige has even said that he agrees they're far more difficult to work with than the usual studio.

But here's the thing about having some sort of oversight for your directors: you make sure brand integrity is protected. That is one of the biggest things Johns needs to address in this position.

The selling point WB used to contrast the DCEU with the MCU was that they allow the directors a greater range of creative freedom to do whatever the heck they want. That they are a studio for artists. The problem is, sometimes artists have stupid ideas. That's why editors exist in literary circles. That's why the New Hollywood era of film making eventually died out; people at the top realized giving a bunch of money and zero accountability to hot shot directors and letting them do whatever they wanted wasn't always a smart idea.

Sure, sometimes you get the Taxi Driver or Star Wars. But then sometimes you also get Heaven's Gate.

 

[Boom]

One cannot watch Suicide Squad and maintain that WB is sincere in its supposed "filmmaker driven" approach.

 

[MbJ]

One cannot watch Suicide Squad and maintain that WB is sincere in its supposed "filmmaker driven" approach.

If The Hollywood Reporter is to be believed the reason they did finally step in was precisely because of the negative reaction to BVS. It just seems like in this case the executive intervention only made things worse.

 

[Timebomb]

I'm not talking about MOS but all of our heroes in general. The writing has to celebrate the character and push them in new directions but also have them react in a way that is true to their character. A perfect example is the new animated "The Killing Joke" the book is a great Batman story and the animated version of the book part is really good but the first 30 minutes takes the character and has him do something that is completely out of character and it suffers from it. Sure they can write that scene and have it help make the movie rated R but did they need to? The scene actually ruins everything after for me because it changes his whole character. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.