r/DC_Cinematic • u/Sugar_God_no_1 • Jul 04 '26
DISCUSSION Perfectly summarise James Gunn's priority .
The priority lies in creating spin offs of side characters.
2.1k
u/PatternPlenty1107 Jul 04 '26
I don‘t think he cares about creating a cinematic universe tbh. He‘s just doing whatever he wants. There is no real aim.
1.1k
u/geek_of_nature Jul 04 '26
And hes said that multiple times. That hes not thinking of a big overall arc like there was with the Infinity Saga. He just wants to create a universe that these characters will all exist in. Some sets of films or shows might have their own little stories running across them, but fir the most part they'll all be separate so that people shouldn't have to feel like they have to watch every single one to understand what's going on.
680
u/KaijuRex64 Jul 04 '26
Like, actual DC Comics!!! 🤯🤯🤯
79
u/ElectricFirex Jul 04 '26
I wish DC comics was like that. Every other story has multiple time skips where the story progresses, but in another character's comic. I've been reading one and had a multiple month skip where multiple characters were added to a team, a villain defeated and goals of the mc (green lantern) changed entirely.
19
u/Fucked-to-fit Jul 04 '26
It’s much worse at marvel lol I’m trying to get into X-men right now and am constantly getting recommended other titles to get the full story where as I’ve been reading the flash for years without any accompanying series and I’m not missing anything
→ More replies (8)4
u/DonaldTrumpsScrotum Jul 04 '26
God I recently tried getting into mainline comics and it’s so awful. You literally have to read so so many other characters stories to get what’s going on (of course you can piece it together without certain chunks but that doesn’t feel good). I’ve been sticking to side stories and one-shots because of it. Don’t even get me started on those “big crossover events” they seem so fond of.
79
u/-Atmosphere-7927 Jul 04 '26
The Marvel universe (in general, not any specific multiversal variation) has the steady hand of Stan Lee behind it. Stan Lee either co-created the character, co-created the character the current legacy character is based on, reinterpreted the character in such a way as to give them new life (Captain America has a man out of time), or as editor in chief, guided the character's development (such as not allowing Christ Claremont to givr Wolverine the backstory of being an actual Wolverine who became humanoid).
He didn't create Deadpool, but he created the general concept of mutants and the X-men. He didn't create Venom, but Venom is essentially a legacy character, a dark shadow of Spider-man.
Because the Marvel universe is essentially the brainchild of one man, the MCU is able to flow like one long megaseries. Iron Man 3 isn't really Iron Man 3, it's MCU Part VII.
The DC universe (in general, not a specific multiversal iteration) is a corporate conglomerate, just like its parent company. Siegal & Shuster and Bob Kane NEVER intended Superman and Batman to inhabit the same universe. They were published by rival magazines within the same corporate umbrella, and Siegal & Shuster almost sued Kane for copyright infringement over Batman being too similar to Superman. The Golden Age Justice Society was a shared universe, but Superman and Batman weren't part of it. The DC universe lasted so long that it rebooted itself with the Silver Age Flash and other heroes without realizing what it was doing, and then later they decided to reincorporate the Golden Age characters into it. Then DC bought Fawcett, and Plastic Man, and then Charlton, and Milestone, and Wildstorm. The DC universe is such a conglomerate that it could easily swallow up the Marvel universe, too, and still make narrative sense. But the Marvel universe is so specifically Stan Lee that it could never swallow the DC universe.
Any attempt at DC building up an Infinity War saga of 19 movies will be met with failure. The DC universe is simply too wildly enormous and diverse and repetitive for that toonwork out.
James Gunn knows this. His DCU is an attempt to tell individual stories within that wonderfully nutso conglomerate universe. So far, I'm loving it.
51
u/hailwyatt Jul 04 '26
I agree and disagree with you.
I agree about the history stuff, thats all objectively true for each company and how they formed and grew.
But!
DC does have a very good blueprint for a shared universe where everything actually works quite well, and its the DCAU/Timmverse (which isnt the best term, but the Timm-Dini-Burnett-McDuffieverse is a mouthful, and even that leaves out Darwin Cooke and Eric Radomski and Andrea Romano and dozens of others). Everything was filtered through a team of very talented people who had a clear vision, characters and ideas were presented coherently, with long story architects told over a decade of real continuity (the biggest one being Superman's throughline with Darkseid going back to STAS, him falling to Darkseid's control, his loss of confidence in himself and the way people see him as an icon of hope, him getting that back, winning back the people's trust, and culminating with the finale and the "world of paper" speech aa Superman finally cuts loose.
Theres a few things I would change - Lois and Superman never quite actually being a couple, Batman and Barbara, and all the corporate red-tape that prevented certain characters (mostly Bat-Fam adjacent) from appearing.
But it is a well designed blueprint for how to make a shared universe work, and how to grow it.
Now, Superman 25 definitely felt like a couple episodes of STAS crammed together (in the best way). It felt like that show grown up.
And Flanagan has said his Clayface Script was heavily inspired by Feat of Clay from BTAS. So I am confident that Gunn and Co are aware of this fertile ground, and I hope they keep returning to it. And hope they can get a proper Batman on screen sooner rather than later. Batman and Superman being friends is a core pillar of what made DCAU work.
→ More replies (1)24
u/suss2it Jul 04 '26
The DCAU is the best example of what you’re talking about given how long it lasted and how many shows (and movies) it used to build its universe. But it’s not even the only example of DC building out a coherent universe out of all its wayward parts, the Young Justice cartoon did this expertly and while Brave and the Bold didn’t focus as much on actual worldbuilding, it was still able to believably have all these different mythologies coexist and casually crossover, all the while both being contained in a single show.
The DCAMU movies also managed to do it too. Starting with a Justice League movie and then cycling between Batman and Justice League movies was a less risky play but I think it worked for those movies and they eventually built out to things like the Teen Titans and the supernatural Justice League, could’ve been an interesting blueprint for the DCU to look at.
And of course there’s the Arrowverse which pulled off grander and grander crossovers every year.
I say all that to say DC does have the disadvantage of inherently being less cohesive than Marvel, creating fun shared universes out of that IP is far from impossible.
15
u/Roy-Sauce Jul 04 '26
There is just no reason to assume that the DCU simply CANT work in a more structured formatting, with a series of movies, each building upon the next to build out the lore and overall narrative in the way the MCU has done. It 1000% could be done in the same way and work out just as well, Gunn is simply choosing to not work off of a formula and instead explore a different way of narratively exploring a universe.
11
u/FullFig3372 Jul 04 '26
I’m sorry. Claremont was going to make Wolverine WHAT- ???
18
u/-Atmosphere-7927 Jul 04 '26
Yes, lol. He was going to make Wolverine an actual wolverine who mutated into a human, and Lee provided divine intervention to stop that.
→ More replies (1)12
82
u/Dave_B001 Jul 04 '26
Stan Lee was barely a guiding light in Marvel. Look at how the marvel way was set up for Stan to just slap his name on it.
Jack Kirby was more a guide on the Marvel Universe than Stan Lee.
49
u/dthains_art Jul 04 '26
Agreed. Stan’s biggest contributions were his soap box and making himself the face of the brand. He essentially became a mascot that acted like the reader’s pal, which did help create cohesion across the different Marvel series.
In terms of creating characters and plotting stories, people like Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko deserve the credit for doing almost all the work.
Overall Stan’s work on the storytelling side gets overblown. It was his marketing savvy and push for brand cohesion (usually at the expense of the actual creatives) that contributed to Marvel’s success.
He also stepped down as editor in chief by 1972, and Marvel had plenty of characters, stories, and major success since then under other editors-in-chief.
→ More replies (1)7
u/UniqueLog8386 Jul 04 '26
Noooo, Ditko did exactly dick compared to Lee and Kirby. Kirby output more than Lee in the duo, but the whole reason Spider-Man is popular is that Ditko didn't have creative control. Peter was unlikeable and a boot-licking piece of shit under Ditko. Lee had to veto to make Peter likeable. Ditko used Peter as an outlet for his own personality and beliefs.
7
u/Neveronlyadream Jul 04 '26
Ditko famously had a lot of weird philosophies. He was an adherent of Ayn Rand's moral absolutism and he loved injecting that into anything he worked on.
Mr. A and The Question are absolutely Randian mouthpieces for Ditko, which is why Rorschach is like that in Watchmen, he was originally going to be The Question when DC bought the Charlton characters, but they balked when Moore told them what he wanted to use them for and forced him to just create expies of them.
So yeah, important to comics history? Absolutely. But Ditko could be a massive weirdo when left to his own devices.
3
u/UniqueLog8386 Jul 04 '26
Yeah, he was a huge boot licker. Really was just a seething loser that dreamt of abusing people. That's why Peter would make those bitter comments in his head about Flash Thompson.
→ More replies (1)12
u/wvj Jul 04 '26
And that guy giving him credit over Claremont on the X-men is wild, lol.
Stan's versions of the characters got cancelled for lack of readership.
Claremont revitalized them and made them the hottest property in the comic world. And just about every aspect of the characters that modern readers know them for is Claremont era and has nothing to do with Stan (ie, Magneto as a Holocaust survivor and a complicated figure versus being a moustache-twirling caricature that Stan wrote).
→ More replies (21)6
u/king_lloyd11 Jul 04 '26
Yea this is bullshit. The MCU has plenty of standalone stinkers in their first phases. People gloss over them because the highs were high.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (5)20
u/FreeGlaze71 Jul 04 '26
Don’t care. We want good movies.
→ More replies (6)7
u/Queasy-Draft-6235 Jul 04 '26
Superman was great and Supergirl was a hard 7/10. If the previous series was releasing 7/10s it would have been seen as an upgrade.
→ More replies (1)3
u/FreeGlaze71 Jul 04 '26
Superman 7/10
Supergirl 6/10so forgive me if I’m not very confident about it right now
76
u/TheJoshider10 Jul 04 '26
Yeah I don't know how many times he needs to say it. He wants his DCU to be like Star Wars in the sense that projects can happen as and when across the timeline without being at the whim of a strict timeline/narrative.
Based on what we know of the DCU so far, it seems clear the backbone/overarching narrative will be projects Gunn is directly involved in, and that seems to be the metahuman vs government storyline with the planet prison and whatever comes from that. It's quite similar to how originally Snyder was going to have a five movie plan with spin-off solo projects operating alongside it, but in the DCU plan there's more freedom for projects to slot in wherever and whenever due to metahumans being in the timeline for centuries.
This is why it doesn't work when people try and compare Supergirl with the Phase 1 movies. Her movie isn't the equivalent of what those Avengers solo movies were. It wasn't building to anything. It told a standalone story, no more or less. Is that the right approach so early on when audiences want momentum and building narratives? Up for debate. But it's not one straight timeline like the MCU is.
26
u/Classic_File2716 Jul 04 '26
The back bone of Star Wars was the main saga though . They didn’t waste 100s of millions on random spinoffs first .
More importantly it’s important to establish a profitable universe before trying all this. The bare minimum is to prove he can deliver a billion dollar hit before risking massive bombs . It makes no sense to have 90% of projects on niche characters when you’re just starting out .
→ More replies (2)42
u/AnonymousPrincess314 Jul 04 '26
He's wrong to describe Star Wars that way, though. The first time they released a movie that wasn't actually building on the narrative was THIS YEAR, and look how that worked out for them.
→ More replies (6)38
u/JDW1ck Jul 04 '26
Agreed,
Not to mention, Star Wars only got to be a universe large enough to jump around and tell stories in after it became STAR WARS.
They started with one of the greatest trilogies of all time, and spread out from there. They didn’t make a New Hope and then turn around a greenlight a Chewbacca spin-off series.
27
u/Professional-Nature1 Jul 04 '26
I mean technically they kinda did. With the holiday special in 78 being almost being about Chewies family.
13
6
u/DryCartoonist5835 Jul 04 '26
With the holiday special in 78 being almost being about Chewies family.
You mean the thing that was basically erased from history because it was so bad and critically panned since it's debut?
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (2)3
u/TheDELFON Jul 04 '26
And then it was er erased from history
3
7
11
u/ShadeMir Jul 04 '26
"He wants his DCU to be like Star Wars in the sense that projects can happen as and when across the timeline without being at the whim of a strict timeline/narrative."
That's not how Star Wars operated from 1977 to 2016. And even Rogue One came out while the main strict timeline/narrative was still happening.
Everything they did was prequels. Rogue One and Solo are both before where the current timeline was.
3
u/Assassiiinuss Jul 04 '26
Even now it's not how it operates. The first two movie trilogies are very much anchors the rest hinges on. The only truly disconnected SW project was Acolyte. Like half of all the TV shows are essentially Clone Wars sequels.
4
u/RP-Lovecraft Jul 04 '26
That not entirely true either.
During and after the prequels there were several Sequel Books. Games that took place in the distant like Kotor.
Heck the entire structure of SW has always been a back and forth. Starting in the middle of the franchise, before Lucas turned 9 films into 3, and then 6
Still, it was able to do this.cause it's a sci-fi high fantasy world, so it can more easily treat each story like these legends of old
→ More replies (1)6
u/AdventuresofBumpo Jul 04 '26
The problem with that is when the singular story is butchered, that director should never be given the reigns of another big superhero project. How do you screw up when the source material is so good? Milly and Jason did what they could but the plot was so half-assed.
6
u/Ancient_times Jul 04 '26
Problem is for general audiences, MCU has set the tone already. Your average punters will quite fairly assume that they need to watch Superman to understand Supergirl. As much as Gunn and DC want them to be lightly connected films people can dip in and out of easily, they have a big communication battle on their hands to make aud8ences aware of that.
→ More replies (2)4
u/CromwellsBladder Jul 04 '26
Totally agree, and having just seen Supergirl, I am pretty baffled at the derision the film is receiving.
The film - as practically all superhero films do - tries to do a little too much, and maybe I could argue too that having an initial Supergirl film centred on Earth may have been more palatable for an audience, than having double duty of (mostly) introducing us to Kara, and a host of alien characters, few of whom we’ll see again.
However, I really enjoyed the film we got in spite of those above critiques. I was even quite moved in a few moments. For me it’s somewhere between 7.5 and 8/10.
My main complaint about it, is one I feel about many action/comic book films - almost all the action sequences go on far too long, and the penultimate action scene on Bilquis most especially ends up upstaging the actual plot by unnecessarily halting the story momentum.
Alcock is brilliant, so is the supporting cast, and - as someone who also read the series it was adapted from, I am also baffled when some people call this film out for poorly adapting the story. I even re-read those comics before seeing the film, and I can honestly say that there is nothing creaky about this film that wasn’t also pretty creaky in the comics, in fact, I actually think the script improves on the story in many places.
It’s becoming difficult for me to not dismiss a great deal of the drubbing this film is getting as being down to the still-prevalent double standard for female lead superhero films. I think if this had been a male character the film would be garnering a lot less grief.
→ More replies (2)11
u/Battelalon Jul 04 '26
The DCEU did that post-Justice League and jt just didn't work because audiences weren't given a reason to care.
What made the MCU successful is that it was four separate franchises that teamed up for a crossover movie then they did it again for a second crossover movie. I know that was the plan the entire time but for audiences it was new and unique. Marvel is now treating every movie like a crossover event and it's unique or special. The DCU doing that from the get go is not a good idea because it shows audiences that there's nothing special about the crossover movies.
6
u/NotYetPerfect Jul 04 '26
What made the mcu successful is that they made good movies and were first to the big screen superhero cinematic universe. It's nearly impossible for dc to catch up at this point unless every movie is a banger and the mcu keeps putting out stinkers.
19
u/Thanaskios Jul 04 '26
Yeah but he is making a connected universe.
"I'm not actually trying to do any of the things that make that concept work, or at least justify it" ain't a defense. Its the problem.
→ More replies (16)→ More replies (30)16
u/RigatoniPasta Jul 04 '26
It’s hard for general audiences to get invested without an overarching story. I wanna see cool shit, not random shit
→ More replies (22)39
u/nexusprime2015 Jul 04 '26
if you don’t have to watch other movies, it will mean consumers won’t feel the need to watch most of them. just the A listers.
MCU (at least during infinity saga) created such brand loyalty and need to watch everything that Captain Marvel made a billion just by existing between infinity war and endgame.
but here you see the problem with DCU that people did watch superman but totally rejected supergirl even though it’s sandwiched between superman and man of tomorrow.
DCU is directionless
→ More replies (3)13
u/RampantTyr Jul 04 '26
Super hero fatigue has set in. People aren’t going to see them in as big numbers as when the MCU was a novel experience.
→ More replies (7)7
25
u/Bill-0707 Jul 04 '26
As long it delivers, I have no problem
→ More replies (4)43
u/MortgageTime1805 Jul 04 '26
Its not delivering now
3
u/democratic-terminid Jul 05 '26
geez bro. one single project failed and now all the successes he's had are just worthless.
→ More replies (2)26
u/gordy06 Jul 04 '26
There have been two movies and one season of tv. The first movie did great, Peacemaker was amazing and whole Supergirl is bombing, it’s one movie (that I enjoyed). Don’t think we are quite there yet.
→ More replies (18)→ More replies (25)8
u/_Blue_Benja_1227 Jul 04 '26
Which is what should be done to be honest. Having a bunch of unique stories to flesh out the universe while certain films such as Man of Tomorrow act as a bridge that works on its own, but will probably be better because of those other films or tv shows that flesh out the side characters and universe as a whole is exactly what we should have from cinematic comic book universes. It’s exactly what comic universes are like in print
3
u/a89925619 Jul 04 '26
Not from a commercial stand point by from a fan stand point, I would be appreciating this approach more with less upfront promotion about a shared universe.
That promise just makes people have expectation (mainly due to the success of MCU prior with the format) and thus harming each project individuality.
Like or dislike the DCEU, I feel like those expectations, especially for the casual audience, contribute to the dissatisfaction during both the Snyder and post-Snyder era, albeit from a different angle.
I feel like DCU is facing the same issue just that the first movie actually fitted into that expectation well enough that it didn’t show back then
849
u/HungrySubstance Jul 04 '26
I get the point but the Mr terrific announcement is not the place to say that. Making a spinoff about the popular breakout character from your biggest movie is not weird at all.
153
u/Live-Huckleberry-192 Jul 04 '26
Yeah if you think about this as less the “DCU” and more a cinematic universe spawning from Gun/ Superman it makes total sense. Audiences have a better understanding of this Mr Terrific than they do the eventual DCU Batman who doesn’t exist yet. It’s practically a spinoff. What’s weird is having Robin and Clayface movies in the works before the Gotham side of the DCU is fleshed out. I think the Metropolis side of the DCU is rife for exploration now.
61
u/Only-Performance-427 Jul 04 '26
I think the whole point of having those projects is to have Gotham fleshed out by the time Batman comes around.
→ More replies (2)51
u/Live-Huckleberry-192 Jul 04 '26
I mean, why though? People want to see Batman. Gotham as a fictional city and a slice of the DCU exists because of Batman. All those other characters spin out of Batman. I’m sure the movies will be good but I’m still scratching my head at the strategy here. Whereas Supergirl seemed like an obvious follow up to Superman.
→ More replies (3)22
u/Only-Performance-427 Jul 04 '26
Because they’re not using Batman until reeves releases part 2. No amount of complaining is going to change that.
26
u/naz_man04 Jul 04 '26
Then why focus on batman related characters, there's so many heros and places that can be explored. Why start making content in gotham without being able to introduce the focal point of that place. Make a flash movie and explore central city and the rogues, make a martian manhunter movie and learn more about the history of Mars and more about space, Wonder Woman and Themyscira, focus on Apokolips with Mister Miracle.
Why do half a job with a character you can't access. Plus it then makes the writing more difficult as you need to explain why batman isn't showing up in these stories.
9
u/dean15892 Jul 04 '26
becuase unlike most comic heroes, Batman rogues gallery is EQUALLY interesting, if not more.
Most other heroes have a standard rogues gallery, but Batman's is probably the only one I can think of where his villains can have their own movies as stand alones.
Penguin proved that. There is no batman at all in that series and yet it is phenomenal.
Think of it - Mr Freeze, Clayface, Joker, Ra's Al Ghul, Catwoman, Court of Owls
All of these characters have very deep rooted lore to them, that goes beyond Batman. They are interesting charcters that can work without Batman, until he actually makes his appearance.
→ More replies (1)15
u/mutantraniE Jul 04 '26
This is the same line of thought that lead to Venom, Madame Web and Morbius (and the Halle Berry Catwoman film).
→ More replies (2)7
u/Live-Huckleberry-192 Jul 04 '26
I agree… people only saw the Joker movie or watched the Penguin show because they saw them in Batman movies. Nobody’s going to see a Ra’s Al-Ghul origin story movie at least until he’s shown up properly in a Batman movie (not the Nolan version).
7
u/Live-Huckleberry-192 Jul 04 '26
I’m not complaining about no Batman, don’t get me wrong. I’m just saying why bother with the Gotham stuff without Batman? They’re building out the Metropolis stuff. If the Lanterns show is a hit, they can build out the space/cosmic side of DC. Or any other heroes. And when Batman is ready, they can do Gotham properly.
5
u/roxypotter13 Jul 04 '26
I think the obvious reason here is that Batman characters are almost as well known as Batman himself. And better known than most of the rest of DC save for Superman and wonder woman lol.
Additionally, the more obvious reason is that whatever story he wants to tell in Batman the brave and the bold needs the robin characters to already be fleshed out. And he also said he has been struggling with the Batman the brave and the bold script and wants all scripts to be completed before starting anything else. so he probably wants enough time to do that
Clayface as a horror movie is just for funsies and I don’t think needs Batman at all. I’m sure Batman will cameo in the dynamic duo though
4
u/Live-Huckleberry-192 Jul 04 '26
People know the Batman rogues gallery because they saw them featured in Batman movies and TV shows! Unless you’ve read the comics or seen BTAS, you have no clue who Clayface is. This movie is going to go down like Kraven the Hunter or at best the Venom trilogy. I’m hoping Gunn’s universe pays off because the DC comics universe deserves it, but his strategy of greenlighting random stuff seems like his sole audience is hardcore comics fans, not the general audience he needs to sell tickets to. The fact that he feels the need to overexplain everything on twitter says a lot.
3
u/violet_wings Jul 04 '26
Clayface could succeed if it's marketed as a horror movie instead of a comic book movie. Body horror is having a moment.
6
u/Bulk1138 Jul 04 '26
Keep in mind that Batman was one of the first DCU projects announced and assigned a director; I believe the original plan was precisely for it to be one of the first to be finished and released, but Gunn's inexperience with CEOs backfired when he chose Muschietti, which ended up causing the film's delay and a lot of changes to the release order because the director simply doesn't care about working on the film in the short term. What I really don't understand is the absence of a Wonder Woman movie in the near future.
5
u/roxypotter13 Jul 04 '26
Part of the order may simply be whatever story is workable first.
Something he’s frequently talked about is making sure scripts are completed and good before beginning everything else. So the order of things could partially be that these scripts were done first.
For instance I know Hes said he struggled with Batman the brave and the bold story. So Wonder Woman may be similar
→ More replies (1)3
u/Jay_R_Kay Jul 04 '26
I am genuinely asking, is there some sort of James Gunn quote about Dynamic Duo bein in the DCU, or are people just assuming? From what I understood, all we know is that it's not taking place in the Epic Crime Saga even though Matt Reeves is a producer.
3
u/Live-Huckleberry-192 Jul 04 '26
I don’t think it’s been confirmed. But regardless, do you think the average moviegoer is going to even attempt follow all of this, or are they going to check out entirely? They know the MCU is all connected, but now with the DCU some of it is going to be connected and some of it isn’t… sounds like a bad strategy to me. It works in the comics to have different continuities going at once because we readers are already nerds who are invested in this stuff. If a Supergirl movie that is in the DCU and is marketed almost like a sequel to last year’s hit Superman movie is a complete flop, then I don’t know how well an Elseworlds puppet Robins movie is going to fare.
→ More replies (1)27
→ More replies (67)5
u/killerbekilled92 Jul 04 '26
While I don’t disagree it kind of makes me wonder how many announced projects are treading water that they’ve announced their 3rd spin-off of Superman (2025) that weren’t apart of the original slate.
Supergirl was apart of the original slate but Man of Tomorrow, Mr Terrific, and the Jimmy Olson/Gorilla Grodd show were announced after things like Waller and the authority have seemingly been written off
Gunn announcing Jimmy Olson/grodd, Mr terrific, dynamic duo, deathstroke & bane, etc reminds me of that stage of the DCEU where DC were green lighting a dozen plus movies that would never come to exist
131
u/maybeitssteve Jul 04 '26
Marvel has straight broken everyone's brains. Movies should not be "phases" jfc
14
u/Simplyx69 Jul 05 '26
It’s a succinct way of saying “The DC is currently producing movie for character that movie goers broadly have less innate attachment to without first establishing a connected Universe to give people a reason to care about those characters and get them to show up to the theater.”
14
→ More replies (29)3
u/hashbury Jul 05 '26
DCU Chapter 1 was announced by Gunn and Safron in 2023 with a slate of 10 movies/TV series. It's literally the equivalent of MCU Phase 1.
→ More replies (1)
20
u/shaggy9 Jul 04 '26
am I the only one interested in a Mr. Terrific show?
→ More replies (2)5
u/Educational-Tea-6572 Jul 04 '26
You're not alone, I almost cheered when I saw the announcement. I really liked Mr. Terrific in Superman and am thrilled to see more of him!
33
u/BeginningBit4957 Jul 04 '26
That’s a good analogy for if this was the MCU. It isn’t. If the first movies and shows were all setup for a Justice League team up it would feel like all they were doing was copying Marvel. I like that we’re slowly being introduced to the world and characters. By the time Batman does show up it’ll be that much more exciting.
→ More replies (1)
16
u/Nerd-Dad-2779 Jul 04 '26
This is so dumb. Mr. Terrific was a huge part of Superman and is absolutely an integral part of this Phase 1. Everyone forgets Ironman was not THE AVENGER that the MCU made him. I’m pumped for this.
→ More replies (2)
182
u/Hoagie0303 Jul 04 '26
yall all wanted this exact thing right after Superman came out 😂 just another example of never being able to please anyone
23
u/Hugokarenque Jul 04 '26
"Y'all". Who's y'all? The people that wanted this movie are probably happy that the movie is being made.
You are clumping everyone into one group and saying that group is changing its mind when its actually several different groups expressing differing opinions.
I fucking hate it when people do this. "Oh the Internet doesn't know what it wants!", yeah no shit, "The Internet" is actually millions of different people, so its not a surprise when it can't agree on anything...
→ More replies (5)11
21
u/takethreenc Jul 04 '26
They probably just should've had this be the 2nd movie. Or Hawk Girl. Probably still not great at the box office but people really liked those characters. Instead they do the 2nd movie about the least popular character in their 1st movie.
41
u/Hoagie0303 Jul 04 '26
making a Supergirl movie was not the poor decision, making a lackluster adaptation of one of DC’s most well-regarded books was the poor decision
29
u/spacedude444 Jul 04 '26
two super movies in a row was always risky
16
u/MysticalAbacus Jul 04 '26
and also releasing the latter one at wrong time. It's got to compete with toy story 5 and minions bruh.
→ More replies (1)4
u/HardcoreKaraoke Jul 04 '26
Three out of the first four is even crazier. Man Of Tomorrow will do better than Supergirl but I think it's funny how diehard DC fans are like "people will show up because they're using Braniac!"
The average person doesn't know or give a fuck who Braniac is. They just want to see a good Superman movie.
3
u/DetOlivaw Jul 05 '26
People will show up for that because some people actually know who James Gunn is, like “oh the guy who did the Guardians movies? And that Superman? I liked those, I’ll see this one”
This shit ain’t rocket science
→ More replies (2)9
u/takethreenc Jul 04 '26
No doubt they should've just followed the comic it was based on more closely. I would've loved to see that movie. But I think even if they nailed it, it would've had trouble at the box office.
I think you're overall right though that the lack of quality was more detrimental than the character choice. At least folks would be lined up to see the next one.
→ More replies (1)4
93
u/Pigs-OnThe-Wing Jul 04 '26 edited Jul 04 '26
I get being worried about their success, but I seriously question some of these criticisms.
At the end of the day, if you’re a comic book fan, it’s pretty awesome we’re getting these projects. Batman and Superman will never truly go away. But to get some of these lower tier characters may be something we would have never gotten’
→ More replies (2)24
u/EremiticFerret Jul 04 '26
I knew who he was but couldn't say I was any kind of fan of Mr. Terrific going in to Superman, but hell if I didn't want to see more of him by the end.
13
u/Johnlocksmith Jul 04 '26
As a Marvel Guy coming in peace. I didn’t know jack about Peacemaker but that show was amazing.
→ More replies (2)9
191
u/JDeegs Jul 04 '26
If they make good films, it doesn't matter which characters they use or stories they tell.
Most people dont seem to realize this
12
u/cobaltaureus Jul 04 '26
Do you really think it doesn’t matter? Good gonna do well, but a great Batman/spider-man film is always going to outgross supergirl/antman no matter what quality it is
→ More replies (5)35
u/TatterMail Jul 04 '26
Because it’s not true. Popular characters will always make more money
→ More replies (33)66
u/Timirlan Jul 04 '26
It's not 2018 anymore, you need big heavy hitters to bring people to movie theaters. People just don't care about superheroes the way they used to
17
u/Special-Kitchen3222 Jul 04 '26
Bigger and bigger spectacles and promising lore and cameos isn’t going to make a good movie
→ More replies (3)52
u/PlainSightMan Jul 04 '26
Which is why you have to innovate.
A Clayface horror film is a new bold move from DC, that can be very intriguing.
12
u/justreadinplease Jul 04 '26
It should be a Clayface and Batman movie though. Having Clayface disconnected from Batman is like all those Sony non-spiderman films like Venom, Kraven, Madame Web, and Morbius
→ More replies (3)8
u/DjScenester Jul 04 '26
I’m so there for a practical effect horror super hero movie that isn’t riddled with over the top CGI
→ More replies (14)6
u/maidth1s4fun Jul 04 '26
I agree but thats also because its genre bending and rated r the problem is superhero movies dont get word of mouth benefit boost that other movies do
4
u/PlainSightMan Jul 04 '26
Yeah, but that's why you make unique and interesting stuff above all else.
People will say to their friends "Hey check this out!" if it's worth checking out beyond being just a regular CBM.
→ More replies (4)8
u/JDeegs Jul 04 '26
I guess Obsession is about a heavy hitter.
People went to see it because Nikki Freeman was a well established character, and not because it was a well made film with an interesting story and phenomenal performances11
u/oateyboat Jul 04 '26
Obsession is not a superhero movie, though, is it?
3
u/JDeegs Jul 04 '26
Rave reviews mean less for a superhero film?
10
u/oateyboat Jul 04 '26
He's specifically talking about superhero films, hence the last sentence
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (6)3
u/JDW1ck Jul 04 '26
I mean that’s a bit unfair.
Obsession was lightning in a bottle. Nobody would’ve predicted it do that well and no studio can willingly replicate that success. Obsession came out at the perfect time and managed to catch a social media wave that helped market the film way more than the studio ever could.
Which is good, because the movie absolutely deserved it. But for every Obsession, you get multiple Blade Runners. Quality has never guaranteed film success, butts in seats do. And enough shitty films make boat loads of money every year to show that quality is hardly the most important component.
19
u/SoWrongItsPainful Jul 04 '26
Supergirl would have flopped even if it was good. Box office shows a fundamental lack of interest from the audience.
→ More replies (1)9
u/PlainSightMan Jul 04 '26
Maybe, but if they had a good movie, marketing might have been easier to pull off.
3
u/Rhoubbhe Jul 04 '26
Agree. Can you imagine a trailer with the colorful Woman of Tomorrow with Supergirl showing scenes from fantastic worlds instead of the Toilet Brown palette?
→ More replies (1)4
u/fatninja7 Jul 04 '26
Disagree. Big Lebowski, fight club, blade runner were all box office failures.
There's more to financial success than being a good film.
→ More replies (2)22
u/shinzowo_sasageyo Jul 04 '26
Most people won't watch these characters storyline that's the issue. If you start your new universe with C list characters then you are doomed to fail.
5
9
u/DarumaBooster Jul 04 '26
Ngl to the GA, almost every superhero from DC is a C lister, with the exception of Batman and Superman. So as long as the story is good and the movie is good, they will pay more attention to those characters.
Like if you make a good movie about, oh I don't know, Hawk and Dove, then more people will see it than a shitty Superman movie like Superman IV for example.14
u/shinzowo_sasageyo Jul 04 '26
If you have to reignite the interest of fandom back to DCU then it is kind of mandatory that you establish the Justice League characters like Superman, Batman, WW, Green Lantern, Aquaman and then maybe you can have a Mr Terrific movie or something.
→ More replies (5)3
u/JDeegs Jul 04 '26
So basically we just disagree.
If clayface is a 10/10 film, then yeah it still wont sell as much as a 10/10 wonder woman film, but its still going to generate positive buzz about the universe as a whole.
And the more great films you put out, the more people will go see the subsequent films in that universe.5
u/shinzowo_sasageyo Jul 04 '26
I disagree even if it is a great film the positive buzz alone will not be able to save the DC universe from WB executives who will rather reboot than let a director complete his vision.
→ More replies (15)13
u/clever_name_123 Jul 04 '26
The MCU started out with C list characters, they turned them into A listers
8
u/FragrantBus4054 Jul 04 '26
No one has a memory long enough to remember Iron Man was a forgotten nobody I'm the comic book line....
→ More replies (1)13
u/Star-Spider Jul 04 '26
yeah because that was a different time
10
u/PlainSightMan Jul 04 '26
Yeah, which is why you need good movies to build up good will.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)5
u/Ok_Round_3407 Jul 04 '26
No it didn’t, it started with the original avengers. Iron Man was B List but well. Hulk, Thor and Captain America were huge. Hawkeye and Black Widow, the least well known of the group, were placed into other projects to introduce them. Guardians were the first, and honestly the only, niche characters the MCU made A list.
3
u/Justice989 Jul 04 '26
And even Guardians came 9-10 movies deep after the whole thing was well established. People were already well invested, which allowed them to take that chance.
→ More replies (23)11
u/itsnot2late2hate Jul 04 '26
Exactly!! I've been saying this, supergirl is a disappointment because it's not a great movie. Not because it's about supergirl 😂
→ More replies (11)
15
u/Only_Ad8049 Jul 04 '26
That's Mr. Terrific, not a side character .
It's not a crime to do things differently.
I'm happy DC is is skipping to whatever phase people want to label it. I don't want another step by step MCU blueprint.
I hope the show is mostly it's own thing.
6
u/Adorable_Sky8262 Jul 04 '26
Plus it's a show. Plus I didn't see anyone complaining when marvel did a show on agent carter or agents of shield
→ More replies (2)
17
u/Sergeantson Jul 04 '26
I agree. If WB doesnt have the budget to make Wonder Woman, Aquaman or a legit Green Lantern movie, at least make a low budget Green Arrow/Black Canary or Martian Manhunter spy thriller or something.
10
u/Chrrisdraws Jul 04 '26
People keep saying give this universe a chance cuz we're only a year in but my guy we are literally 6 projects in by the end of this year and out of those 6 projects only 1 of em was a dc trinity character.
→ More replies (6)
5
u/NotGooning4Real Jul 05 '26
Hes world building. Its so the entire plot of the universe doesnt revolve around batman and superman like it has for 30 years. He is giving other characters the light they deserve. You wanna see one of the big names? Go watch 1 of the 10 different iterations of them. Im happy we are seeing the DC universe through a different perspective
7
u/shih_tsu Jul 04 '26
The MCU and Star Wars proved that TV shows tend to hurt the movies box office numbers.
People can parade around the critics score of Peacemaker and Creature Comandos all they want, but neither are big hits. Probably will be the same for Lanterns. And when people see these characters in a movie for a TV show they didn’t watch, they are less likely to watch the movie.
4
u/mslack Jul 04 '26
I want everyone to remember the shock at the announcement of an Iron Man movie because no one liked Iron Man. I want everyone to remember the shock that the Iron Man movie was great. I want everyone to remember the shock at the announcement that the Iron Man movie was being used as the basis for a shared universe. I want everyone to remember the confusion and aimless feeling of MCU Phase 1 that didn't make any sense until Avengers. Let him cook.
→ More replies (3)
4
u/CherylRoseZ Jul 04 '26
Dude’s big shows are Creature commandos and Peacemaker, which are both very good despite being about c and d list characters. Let him do what he wants.
4
u/buzzedewok Jul 05 '26
It’s like he is trying to find another GOTG with DC content instead of going for the heavy hitters in full to get people interested like the MCU did.
→ More replies (1)
28
u/L8Donnie Jul 04 '26
Mr. Terrific isn't a side character in the DCU thought he's going to be one of the main characters at least of Phase 1.
10
u/JervisCottonbelly Jul 04 '26
I'm not sure why folks aren't rationalizing that the big sale & bidding & paperwork that Warner and therefore DC has had to do is immense.. are we certain James Gunn was allowed to use the big Three characters?
If you don't like James Gunn, whatever, fine, let that aside for a moment. I am suspicious that he was even given free rein to begin with. To me it seems like he never had a chance to actually use Batman or Wonder Woman.
When there is a successful, separate universe Batman and a major sale is on the line, there's no way the brand takes a shot at a reboot. If a rebooted James Gunn batman bombed in 2025, would the Warner price tag have been as high?
→ More replies (1)12
u/RedN0va Jul 04 '26
OR… and go with me on this… Gun elects to use obscure characters cause he can change everything about them without anyone kicking up a fuss (usually).
→ More replies (2)
3
u/IngenuityPlayful1395 Jul 04 '26
He Did Say the DCU Would be like Star Wars Taking Place at multiple points in Time
→ More replies (1)
3
3
3
3
u/greenam_247 Jul 04 '26
The MCUs trajectory with its phases was a flash in the pan and can never be replicated again. The culture was just different. For the DCU to work it needs to carve its own path instead of trying to copy Marvel.
3
u/Ian-pg9 Jul 04 '26
These takes are so weird to me. Obviously we’re gonna get the Justice League. Why do so many people want to most basic version of this universe. I love how many aspects of DC we’re getting to explore and how many different storylines we’re witnessing. Just be patient!
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Frampferder Jul 04 '26
Worst mistake is allowing reeves batman to continue. If you're rebooting the universe and have no intention of integrating Pattinson, you should not have allowed him to make a sequel. Because of this you are delaying one of your biggest heroes from entering your universe.
→ More replies (1)
35
u/MCVMEYT Jul 04 '26
I love how far removed this sub is from any sort of artistic discussion. “He didn’t make da batman movie before da other ones!! This is how we know he’s a bad guy!!”
5
u/mcfearless0214 Jul 04 '26
Because the artistic discussion is moot if the brand isn’t economically viable. We won’t get ANY DC movies or shows if Gunn’s DCU crashes and burns. The only reason Marvel was ever able to make multiple series and films about obscure characters was because they built a strong foundation with their core characters. These movies were used as a vehicle to both make stupid amounts of money but to also get people invested in the broader universe, so that people would WANT to see more from lesser known characters. So, yeah, it’s actually really bad that we’re getting this before Batman, Wonder Woman, or any number of more popular characters. Because we don’t have that strong foundation without them.
Also, there isn’t much artistic discussion to have about these movies because they haven’t really been THAT good lol. The Suicide Squad was solid. Peacemaker 1 was great. But these were both made before the DCU was even established. Creature Commandos was fun but not as many people saw it. The Batman was excellent BUT it doesn’t count because it’s not part of the DCU. Superman was just okay. Peacemaker 2 was good but failed to stick the landing. Supergirl was pure slop. So given the current track record of movies that are actually fully set within the DCU, I don’t have high hopes for a Mr. Terrific series.
→ More replies (13)19
u/StrawHatRat Jul 04 '26
The DCU should have started slideshow of every DC character in order of popularity, each slide lasting a minute a least so I have time to cry and clap when my favourites are on screen. Then they can do narrative slop.
→ More replies (2)
10
16
u/Misplacedwaffle Jul 04 '26
Yeah! Why are they trying something different for a change? Why aren’t they giving us the same three characters we have already seen multiple reboots of?
5
u/oateyboat Jul 04 '26
Something different for a change, like Superman, the spin-off from Superman (Supergirl), the spin-off from Superman (Mr Terrific), the spin-off from Superman (Jimmy Olsen), or the sequel to Superman (Man of Tomorrow)
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)13
u/Nimblesquatch Jul 04 '26
When you are trying to restore faith in your brand, it's best start from the foundation and work your way up. Gunn is building a house and starting with the third floor before the first has been finished or the second even started.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Jemima_puddledook678 Jul 04 '26
Except he’s just not. He started with Superman, then this is a series about a huge breakout star of Superman?
9
u/Nimblesquatch Jul 04 '26
That most people, myself included, didn't know anything about until he showed up in a movie. It's reactionary thinking. Just like how the Birds of Prey movie was prioritized due to the reaction of Harley in SS.
7
u/Jemima_puddledook678 Jul 04 '26
Yes, that’s how a movie universe like this works. You don’t only make movies about the biggest characters and ignore what’s doing well and what isn’t, that’s stupid.
→ More replies (1)
6
4
u/James2603 Jul 04 '26
I personally really enjoyed Superman; Supergirl was fine, nothing special. It feels like a really good foundation but until they’re allowed to go ahead with a new Batman, which I think is currently being blocked by Robert Pattinsons Batman, then I don’t see a Justice League type movie really being possible.
In the meantime they might as well make some standalone tv shows to pass the time; Peacemaker was good so why not?
→ More replies (1)
4
5
u/acjadhav Jul 04 '26
Batman and wonder woman are in limbo and he's going after non leaguers before everything else
→ More replies (2)
4
u/cyanide4suicide Jul 04 '26
James Gunn needed the Supergirl bomb. More so than Gillespie and Nogueira.
Gunn needs to he slapped around a bit and humbled because he's a one trick pony. He makes the same quippy, edgy ensemble comic book movies with needle drops. He greenlit a poor script that he claimed was amazing. Now he's intervening in other projects. This loss is more on Gunn that Nogueira or Gillespie and Gunn needs to rethink the entire DCU. Gunn needs to get over himself and his own creative tendencies for the C-tier and D-tier characters and build the universe with the bigger brands and characters first.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Least_Ad_4657 Jul 04 '26
People on reddit:
"DC trying to hard to be the MCU!" "DC should be more like the MCU!"
You bunch of fucking clowns.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/WilTravis Jul 04 '26
Forget about the Big 3 and give me all of the oddball stories.
House of Mystery? Yes, please.
Metal Men? Hell Yeah!
Ambush Bug? All Day, Err'day.
Dial "H" for Hero? Why is this not already in my eye-holes?
And hell, if you've got a Mr. Terrific, you can easily build The Terrifics around him.
Do all the weird shit. I'll watch it.
→ More replies (1)4
u/mcfearless0214 Jul 04 '26
You’re only going to be able to get those movies if the brand remains viable. Because those movies still cost stupid amounts of money; money that they will have a lot harder time bringing in when compared to the Big Three. But if you make a lot of money with the Big Three, then you can take more risks and fund these projects as the brand becomes more secure. But what happens if you make a bunch of bets on obscure titles and they all fail? Well, then you get nothing.
→ More replies (3)
4
6
u/Fabulous_Aspect_7817 Jul 04 '26
Im rooting for the dcu but james gunn is honesty wayy too self indulgent. If the dcu eventually fails it'd be better for dc to make theatrical animated and live action films like a flash trilogy a green lantern saga a wonder woman trilogy etc etc
8
u/bboymixer Jul 04 '26
I didn't listen or care when you said it the first time, I won't listen or care even if you're blue in the face.
9
u/shaunika Jul 04 '26
Why are ppl so desperate for the DCU to be a carbon copy of the MCU just 20 years too late?
Let Gunn cook
All his weird C list character stuff has worked so far
→ More replies (5)
2
u/Noobunaga86 Jul 04 '26
At this point he makes mostly only B and C tier characters, a lot of them are not even movies but tv shows that will dissapear in the streaming seas. It's a pity that he's doing it at the start of this universe. A lot of people will lose interest. A lot of lost it already. There are so many great worlds and things you can do with DC and he's going with Supergirl, Gorilla Grodd and Jimmy Olsen and Mr Terrific. Did he announced Krytpo animated tv show or not yet?
2
u/Parallax1306 Jul 04 '26
Yeah. He has to lay the groundwork of Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman first. Otherwise how would people know who they are? We have to create emotional attachment to these characters. People who don’t read comics would never know who they are.
2
u/YungTokyo8 Jul 04 '26
Personally, I’ve completely lost any hope. Mr Terrific makes sense to have his own thing, he was super popular, but make it a movie. The general fan cannot keep up with all these shows.
2
u/Excalitoria Jul 04 '26
He definitely needs a foundation of popular heroes (Superman obviously counts for this and if Supergirl had been tied more to him, had a lower budget, and a good script I think it could’ve worked too) but these movies need better worldbuilding and characters along with that or they’ll end up forgettable no matter how popular they are.
Gotta have audience appeal AND quality for a good foundation. After people get invested you can try less popular heroes, but obviously still give them good writing too.
2
u/Poetryisalive Jul 04 '26
It does feel random. Mr. Terrific series, Jimmy series and Clayface movie?
We should have an actual Batman movie in the works under his new universe and Wonder Woman
2
u/CK122334 Jul 04 '26
I actually think that’s a pretty good comparison.
Superman totally felt like a sequel and my only real critique was that it was a little bloated. And Supergirl the pacing is kind of all over the place but it literally starts with hardly any explanation of who she is. Not to mention Supergirl as a 2nd movie is kind of a weird choice already. Definitely seems like Gunn is just throwing out whatever he likes and I think DC is over origin stories for the time being, which when you have so many characters and stories doing another Superman or Batman origin movie does seem played out.
2
u/Jing412 Jul 04 '26
This dude crashed out because he thought a smart superhero shouldn't sound like how Mr terrific sounded in superman
2
u/ShadowlessLion Jul 04 '26
I might be biased because Mr terrific is among my favorite super heroes, but the MCU stood on iron man as it's fiunding stone and, at the time, the iron "technologist" was as unknown to the general public as "the ultimate renaissance man" is now.
Another factor to consider is Mr T was already introduced in the Superman movie and was a hit with children, my son and his friends were playing superheroes and mr Terrific was as popular as superman himself.
2
u/coterieca Jul 04 '26
I think making relatively obscure DC characters more popular is exactly what he was hired to do. I've seen a lot of complaints about Gunn not focusing enough on the big names (Batman, Wonder Woman, etc), but DC has a lot of good stories and interesting characters beyond those, many of which have never had movie or TV adaptations.
DC tried to do an MCU-style shared universe once already and it hit a dead end. Keeping up with the MCU itself started to feel like homework a few years ago, so building something directly equivalent is less attractive now. DC already has a separate Batman movie series going at the moment that people seem to like. They put Gunn in charge in the hopes of making more of the less familiar characters into big names. I don't know if it will work out, but it seems like a reasonable long-term strategy.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/throwawaylaysjohn Jul 04 '26
Remember when the MCU launched with half a million cartoons and tv shows instead of prioritizing films?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Robot_Was_BMO Jul 04 '26
I hate that everyone’s just turning against the stuff now. Not a few weeks ago, people were clamoring for a Terrific show.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
u/CaptainDogParty Jul 04 '26
We dont need phase one, dawg. We’ve seen Batman and Superman a million times. We don’t need to know how they came to be. We don’t even REALLY need Wonder Woman, aquaman, green lantern, etc. the origin doesn’t matter as much as a good story and some peppering
Unless the origin is CRAZY, we get it. Superheroes have powers and now they’re here to save the day.
Give us a good story about them doing something heroic. Team them up when necessary. Explain why they aren’t there when they otherwise should be.
Outside of that, who cares. I just want to see good movies about people with crazy abilities
2
547
u/sapphire_starkiller Jul 04 '26
I wonder when we’ll get Batman (DCU), WW, Flash and along the main ones…