DC Movie Universe

[August4th]

 

[Xmad]

18 minutes ago, Deadpulse said:

Why is it a bad thing that they are making a supergirl movie? They have already discontinued the idea of a cinematic universe. Just because it isnt apart of some grand design its automatically a bad thing that they are making a movie?

There's already a show with supergirl for one, and while you can do a movie version it's like.....Why? You already have the TV show.

Give another character who hasn't had a movie before a movie, like Shazam (Supergirl had one in the 80s) plus it's redundant with the show still ongoing.

[Dr LBC]

On 7/28/2018 at 4:47 PM, SwoleXmad said:

This. I'm saying they stopped using him in Arrow because they had movie plans for him. 

Deadshot is probably scrapped as well given WIll Smith is busy and suicide squad 2 looks like it's a long ways off. 

Captain Boomerang in Arrow as well; they even went so far as to bring Digger back in S5 only to kill him off-panel.

[43M]

1 hour ago, Deadpulse said:

Why is it a bad thing that they are making a supergirl movie? They have already discontinued the idea of a cinematic universe. Just because it isnt apart of some grand design its automatically a bad thing that they are making a movie?

 I think people are just mad that their favorite DC characters are either being ruined or wasted.

[Dr LBC]

1 hour ago, SwoleXmad said:

There's already a show with supergirl for one, and while you can do a movie version it's like.....Why? You already have the TV show.

Give another character who hasn't had a movie before a movie, like Shazam (Supergirl had one in the 80s) plus it's redundant with the show still ongoing.

I agree only to the extent that they legitimately could have just plucked Power Girl and had effectively the same character, even still a cousin of Kal-El.

[Dr LBC]

1 hour ago, Deadpulse said:

Why is it a bad thing that they are making a supergirl movie? They have already discontinued the idea of a cinematic universe. Just because it isnt apart of some grand design its automatically a bad thing that they are making a movie?

I mean, it literally (I'm not sure I want to challenge Loeb and DCCU team at this point...) cannot be worse that the originally-pitched inclusion of Supergirl in Superman III - where they planned to make Braniac a father figure to her and Clark and Kara kissing cousins.

[INbengalfan]

2 hours ago, Breesus mode said:

Just throwing **** at the wall to see what sticks.

Normally I agree.  But one of the few successes they have had recently was Wonder Woman.  Maybe they get a good script and try to capitolize on the momentum they had with WW by giving another female super hero.

[DingoLadd]

Don't announce a film until it's actually filming WB....

[kingseanjohn]

11 minutes ago, DingoLadd said:

Don't announce a film until it's actually filming WB....

I think their strategy is to announce a film then gauge reactions to see if they should really make it.

[Deadpulse]

2 hours ago, SwoleXmad said:

There's already a show with supergirl for one, and while you can do a movie version it's like.....Why? You already have the TV show.

Give another character who hasn't had a movie before a movie, like Shazam (Supergirl had one in the 80s) plus it's redundant with the show still ongoing.

Yes no more Batman movies for at least 40 years! There is an ongoing TV show and he like, just got one, so by your own metric he is too redundant. Shelve him until 2056, and only bring him back if there is no TV adaptation of any kind going in at that time. 

[Deadpulse]

1 hour ago, FourThreeMafia said:

 I think people are just mad that their favorite DC characters are either being ruined or wasted.

Por que? No one knows anything about this movie but we are to assume she is being ruined and wasted? You can point at recent flops all you want, but if they are now letting creative teams and directors take control of the narrative without any invisible hands trying to cusps water, those flicks are relatively irrelevant IMO. 

[Xmad]

5 minutes ago, Deadpulse said:

Yes no more Batman movies for at least 40 years! There is an ongoing TV show and he like, just got one, so by your own metric he is too redundant. Shelve him until 2056, and only bring him back if there is no TV adaptation of any kind going in at that time. 

Yes because WB should shelve it's best franchise for reasons. I get the point you're making but like Gotham is way different than any Batman movie that will end up getting made.

Super girl the movie would basically do the same thing as the TV show but condensed into 2.5 hours, what's the point if they're just going to do an origin story when the TV show is already doing that. 

Unless it's a wildly different take on the character I don't see the point of giving her a movie when D.C has way more interesting characters to explore, and definitely not do supergirl before a MOS2 film. 

 

 

[Deadpulse]

4 minutes ago, SwoleXmad said:

Yes because WB should shelve it's best franchise for reasons. I get the point you're making but like Gotham is way different than any Batman movie that will end up getting made.

Super girl the movie would basically do the same thing as the TV show but condensed into 2.5 hours, what's the point if they're just going to do an origin story when the TV show is already doing that. 

Unless it's a wildly different take on the character I don't see the point of giving her a movie when D.C has way more interesting characters to explore, and definitely not do supergirl before a MOS2 film. 

 

 

All of this is your assumptions based on nothing. You have no idea what this movie will be like. Also the TV show is not really an origin story, it picks up when she has already been on Earth for over a decade. Also why would it matter when they did Supergirl in relation to a MOS2 movie that may or may not ever actually happen?

 

Side note: DC actually has a pretty shallow pool of characters that are interesting when compared to Marvel. 

[Xmad]

6 minutes ago, Deadpulse said:

All of this is your assumptions based on nothing. You have no idea what this movie will be like. Also the TV show is not really an origin story, it picks up when she has already been on Earth for over a decade. Also why would it matter when they did Supergirl in relation to a MOS2 movie that may or may not ever actually happen?

 

Side note: DC actually has a pretty shallow pool of characters that are interesting when compared to Marvel. 

Given it's the first movie for the character in nearly 40 years I'd bet on an origin story, pure speculation yes but it's the safe route. Eh sue me but it's not a good idea to have two of the same live action characters at any one time, super girl the show would immediately be told "You can't do this storyline and use *Insert characters here*" while the movie would be using whatever they wanted and it wouldn't work out well for either property.

I'd Imagine she'll be introduced in MOS2 or superman will be a big part of her origin story so either way that would matter.

D.C has like 15-20 characters they could do a movie on if they wanted to so eh, it's subjective at best. 

[Deadpulse]

2 minutes ago, SwoleXmad said:

D.C has like 15-20 characters they could do a movie on if they wanted to so eh, it's subjective at best. 

Its definitely subjective. However you are hung up on Supergirl and Superman's involvement in her story and how MOS2 should happen first etc. So by your own subjectivity, your shortening your list considerably. The problem with a lot of GREAT DC characters is that so many of them are just legacy characters to the big 7 (Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Latern, Aquaman, and Martian Manhunter). Sure there are some other's like Shazam and Cyborg that aren't linked, but most of the more popular characters are heavily linked. Just look at Flash and Green Latern, those two hero personas are owned by a grand total of 12 characters.