What would the DC cinematic universe be like if this man wasn't otensibly in charge...

What would the DC cinematic universe be like if this man wasn't otensibly in charge? What director would you want instead?

I wouldn't want one single director in charge and if I had to pick anyway, George Miller.

Put Geoff Johns in charge. Or hell, maybe someone from the CW.

Darren Aronofsky was one of the directors being considered for the Superman reboot before they went with Snyder.

That would had been cool, if they paired him with the right screenwriter. I think what made the TDK trilogy good is that you had a director with a sort of art-house background who worked on films with themes similar to themes found in Batman (obsession, identity, loss, etc), and also had an amazing grasp on character and twisty narratives. Then you had a screenwriter who was just genuinely a Batman fan, and helped keep Nolan from straying too far from the spirit of the source material, while Nolan kept them good movies rather than just pure fanservice stuff.

Darren Aronofsky is another art-house-ish guy who likes to explore complex themes. I guess it's not totally analogous to the Nolan/Batman thing, because Aronofsky's films don't seem to share much in common with Superman's themes, but it's not like directors can't adapt. Pair him with somebody who knows Superman (I don't think Goyer is the right guy for that), and you could have a good movie.

As for the rest of this hypothetical film universe, I think it would be cool if they were all filmmaker-driven stuff instead of them having their own Kevin Feige or having 15-year franchise plans developed by some committee of market researchers and executives. They could just have the filmmakers have summits every once in a while to meet up and make sure things don't contradict each other too much and the universe makes sense (not slavish to continuity, but just nothing glaring), but otherwise, the Wonder Woman movie would be the Wonder Woman director's baby, the Flash movie would be the Flash director's baby, etc.

But this is Hollywood and investors wanna make their cash so of course they're not gonna give filmmakers free reign like that, they are going to hire guns to implement and execute their laundry list.

>JJ Abrams
Only if he was banned from homaging the Reeves-verse as Returns already did that shit & suffered for it.

>Or hell, maybe someone from the CW.
The only, single way to make the DCEU even worse.

I guess MoS would have pretty much been the same. I think maybe they would have tried for a Superman sequel instead of BvS with a hint of WW. Maybe then a Batman and or WW movie. With supes showing up in both. Maybe with Lex involved as some sort of antagonist in both. Then a JL or Trinity movie.


I'm not sure if it was his or WB's idea to rush things towards a JL movie but I think if anything was going to be different it would be a more drawn out pace towards he Justice League.

I don't like Zack Snyder's DC movies.
But I don't think he's the only thing wrong.
I think he's like George Lucas. Maybe a little less dumb. He's just not surrounded by the right people to produce the good things he wants to make.
At this point they are 3/3 on shitty movies and should clean house, hire a whole new crew before their IPs are damaged beyond repair.
>Darren Aronofsky's Superman
God damn. That would have been something special.

It's definitely WB who wants to play catch up with Marvel.
If only we lived in Miller's JL mortal timeline. If only.

No their are countless ways to make it worse.
>Have Batman kill and it not having a character development related point to it like we got.
>Not shown Clark saving people like we got in bvs.
>Clark killing Zod after he was no longer a threat to anyone.
>Clark actually having destroyed some notable shit in his fight scenes like people claim he did but did not.
>Being light hearted or silly.
>Lois being overly emotional, whiny or bitchy.
Much more stuff.

The Martha line maybe a convenient solution to their fight, but it was sold acting wise better then all emotional moments in the prequels combined.
How fucking dare you compare him to Lucus.

I honestly think the "MARTHA" moment could have worked with a few tweaks.
Lois shouldn't just randomly show up.
Batman shouldn't become completely dumbfounded that Superman just happens to know another person named Martha. That it gives him pause is great "Who is Martha?" might have been a better line than "WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME?"
I mean Zack can actually manage a movie on his own some times (That owl movie is still great). While George- well no he can't at all. Red Tails is the only other thing he managed to make.

>>Being light hearted or silly.

There's nothing wrong with being light-hearted.

But it worked perfectly fine.
And Lois showing up was also added to the effectiveness of the name drop it shows he has Both a human mother & a woman who will risk danger for him.

If there's even a 1% chance he's a threat we must take it as absolute certainty.

Oh wait he came out a puss? nvm lol

Not inherently no.
But after 5 moves only 2 of which are good it was time for fans of Darker Superman tales to be fairly pandered too.

And being silly offen destroys any tension & weight the proceedings have.
Look at Age of ultron & I say that as someone who likes that film a lot more then most of Sup Forums

No its not that he has a mother biologically.
It's that he has human connections and isn't just playing god with inferior beings beneath him.

I fucking knew you were going to bring up Marvel movies. However, just because they're filled with quips and sarcastic humor doesn't mean they're genuinely light-hearted.

In fact, I think they're actually fairly cynical and mean-spirited. They're obviously highly corporate and marketed. More than that, with directors like Whedon and Gunn, I think their humor is rather ugly. They're meant to make us laugh, true, but it's a disdainful sort of laugh, an ironic sort of laugh.

Superman's light-heartedness is genuine, or it should be. He talks about fighting for Truth, Justice, and the American Way and means it. It's very sincere and simple, because it presumes that people are fundamentally good.

And that's the core of his character. It's been around even since the Golden Age when he was roughing up slum lords. You can't make a Superman movie where he says things like "No one stays good in this world." That's just not Superman, it's some other character wearing Superman's costume.

>actually replying to that user
You KNOW better by now.

Matt Reeves

>You can't make a Superman movie where he says things like "No one stays good in this world."
So Superman isn't allowed to go thru periods of depression & doubt like a realistic & relatable human being?
Even when be proves that statement wrong by making 2 incredible sacrifices?

This bubble of being perfect & unchallenged your forcing on him is far more harming to the character then anything Snyder has done.

>They're obviously highly corporate and marketed.
What does this have any fucking thing to do with the movie within.
Get off your hippy bitch ass "bring down the fat cats" high horse and examine just the film's themselves.

>because it presumes that people are fundamentally good.
But they factually provably are not.
They are animals formed in their environment & biology nothing more.

>That's just not Superman, it's some other character wearing Superman's costume.
Or its just a fallible Superman who has been beaten down & abused and seen too much evil in this world for him to he optimistic in that specific moment in his life.
Who would then go on to die saving billions of lives proving that assessment of things wrong.

>This bubble of being perfect & unchallenged your forcing on him is far more harming to the character then anything Snyder has done.

Remember everyone, there's no such thing as a middle ground, you're other happy-go-lucky or cartoonishly depressed and morose.

That thing in the middle, what is it...emotional complexity? Humanity? They don't exist, buzzwords created by Disney plants and Jew lies.

Not asking for him to always be depressed and morose.
I like Bvs a lot but I do wish he had more happy scenes prior to the Senate explosion.
But there is nothing fucking wrong with him being in a bad place in life, stating the world will currupt anyone and then proving It wrong.

I'm not sure, I think Edgar Wright should be doing Flash. The quick cuts and great humour would suit him well.

I also thought that Bryan Singer would be good but after Superman Returns and Apocalypse I've realized Xmen 2 was a complete fluke

It's not cartoonish it's a perfectly reasonable state to be in if you just found out your mother has been kidnapped & possibly tortured & you may have to publicly murder someone in order to save her.

And what about the rest of the film?

>But there is nothing fucking wrong with him being in a bad place in life, stating the world will currupt anyone and then proving It wrong.

Then how about we actually see some of the "good" moments he's had as Superman and see them directed as such, instead of it looking like a depressing burden for him while overlaid with political commentary?

Him being in a bad place has no impact if we never see him in a good place. As far as we can tell he's been like this since MoS ended.

>overlaid with political commentary?

Holy shit I got so fucking tired of the fucking news voiceovers. I don't give a shit what some fucking idiot anchor thinks of Superman. I want to just see what Superman thinks.

Brad Bird

No he was pretty happy & content at the end of Mos his character regressed because of the Africa situation & the hearings.

And the actual saving of people was never potrayed as a burden hence his smiling while saving the girl.
The reaction to his actions is something he must endure but that doesn't mean he dislikes saving people regardless.

>No he was pretty happy & content at the end of Mos

Which made no sense considering the ending of that movie, but even still that's irrelevant because we get no sense of what he's like in the time-skip.

>And the actual saving of people was never potrayed as a burden

Bullshit. That entire sequence is directed like something out of a horror film with the overcast sun and Superman floating overhead like some kind of god figure with the depressing music and angry political commentary over it.

Don't give me that bullshit, there's no other reading of that montage then "oh, the burdens of being Superman boo hoo the world doesn't understand him or his struggle" and if that's not what the intent was Snyder fucked up.

But it's not like Snyder hasn't been criticized for being unable to express the ideas of his film with his direction before, clearly this is the fault of the audience for no understanding true capekino and not the guy who put Matrix fight scenes in Wachmen even though they literally undermine one of the major themes of the story.

It's overcast because it's been raining, did you not see the fucking sun?
How is Superman being a godly figure horrorish?
The depressing music is BECAUSE of the political commentary.
>"oh, the burdens of being Superman boo hoo the world doesn't understand him or his struggle"
That's not the same fucking thing as him not wanting to help people.
It's a burden BECAUSE of the world's reaction to him not because he doesn't care.

>and not the guy who put Matrix fight scenes in Wachmen even though they literally undermine one of the major themes of the story.
1.) The film being enjoyable to watch takes priority over that 1 single theme.
2.) It only harms the theme for niteowl.
Everyone else in the comic are capable fighters.

>did you not see the fucking sun?
Flood my bad.

>"oh, the burdens of being Superman boo hoo the world doesn't understand him or his struggle"
That is what the intent was and there is nothing fucking wrong with that.
Acknowledging that a realistic world would be endlessly conflictingly ponderous of such a being doesn't lesson Clark's heroism in anyway even when said pondering harms his morale

How about Paul Dini and George Miller? They would had worked like a charm/

Snyder is a byproduct of mediocre nepotism in hollywood.

>What would the DC cinematic universe be like if this man wasn't otensibly in charge
Less compelling, but more popular.

Better
Probably no Batffleck though.

>Lois shouldn't just randomly show up.
She is shown rushing into the battle ground with a chopper, it is not random at all.
>That it gives him pause is great "Who is Martha?" might have been a better line than "WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME?"
...what? Batman is thrown off balance when Superman mentions his mother's name, why would he ask who Martha is when he's triggered to thinking of his own mother and assumes Superman is talking about her.

>If there's even a 1% chance he's a threat we must take it as absolute certainty.

That's just frenzy ramblings Bruce uses to poorly justify his crusade, based on Bruce thinking of Superman as an alien being who is so foreign he cannot be judged like a normal person. That entire train of thought gets obliterated when Batman is shown to be completely wrong about Superman.

What's the point of adapting DC superheroes to screen if you're not also going to adapt the world they make sense in, one where superheroes are generally appreciated and respected?

>You can only depict DC heroes in a way where everything is highly idealized in its world view

No, you can't ONLY depict them that way, but I thought the whole point of these movies was to try, with a certain degree of faithfulness, to translate DC heroes and stories to the screen. I mean, sure, you can make an Elseworlds or AU movie if you want to, that's fine, but my impression was that that was not the point of these movies.

It's like when people speculate that the DCEU is secretly the Injustice timeline, yet none of them bother to think for a minute how incredibly retarded that would be. Yes, I'm sure we want our cinematic version of Superman to be a murderous asshole who becomes a global dictator. That's surely what most people want to see.

Having Batman getting triggered by just hearing the name is dumb as hell, does it affect him even after all these years? Of course, he's still fucking Batman but just hearing the name shouldn't set him off like that. Especially because Superman knew he was Bruce Wayne "how do you know that name?" is a dumb as fuck question because the barest bit of research would provide it.

I can't even see a scene playing out well where Superman doesn't know he's Bruce Wayne, going crazy over the name Martha just tells him that Martha is somehow important. So there's really no reason why he should be saying it like that, either the guy already knows his mom's name is Martha or it could potentially give away revealing information.

Having the name Martha give him pause is a bit better than him flying off the handle. It shows a much more focused Batman but nonetheless showing the crack in his armor. He would have obviously deduced that it's unrelated to his own mother, or if it is, merely some ploy to get him in check, but there is possibility it could be something else, but asking would be giving Superman the benefit of the doubt. Something he would only give him because of the name Martha opening that small crack in his armor. Have him ask it coldly and reluctantly, he doesn't want it to be something else that might possibly humanize Superman but he has to ask because it so strongly brings back memories of his own mother.

Him going fucking bonkers over it is dumb as hell.

That's my real sticking point. I'd be absolutely fine with these characterizations if it was written in an Elseworld issue or something like that. They are very far from the baseline characters but still within the realm of interpretation.

And sure, movies are in and of themselves Elseworlds writ large for the larger audience but the problem is, they also serve as most people's first look at these characters, and having them be so different from the mainline continuity is not going to do anyone any favors.

Does a Batman who kills, if not indiscriminately, but clearly without much remorse a valid take on Batman? Absolutely, it even makes sense with the extra material and background information for this movie how he got there, I can accept that.

But as a first look for many people of Batman it does not justice the characters, their ideals, and their personality.

Nah. Say what you will about Supergirl, but the folks there understand what Superman is supposed to represent.

>But as a first look for many people of Batman it does not justice the characters, their ideals, and their personality.

Oh fuck off. By that logic Burton movies are completely terrible.