I disagree with your point that it was rendered useless, but this thread isn’t really about that topic so I don’t wanna risk getting muted by responding. Feel free to DM me if interested in that conversation tho.
That said, I don’t think that a connected universe isn’t fun/beneficial to audiences. There’s no denying its a cash grab for the companies, but so is every decision that a company makes. If they were only making solo films, it’d still be a cash grab because they’d have determined it to be the most financially beneficial move.
That acknowledged, I think a connected universe can prove to be a beneficial, fun, and unique experience for fans. It’s a participatory form of viewing that encourages people to dig deeper for cameos, easter eggs, and overall just allows for a more fully realized setting and world. The reasons why the later MCU entries have generally been better is because they don’t require the same kind of set up that independent films need. The universe is already explored, now lets explore what these characters are about and what breaks them down. A greater, expanded universe ironically allows for each film (minus big crossovers) to focus in on the characters on a more micro level.
Once again, it’s worked in comics for decades. There’s no reason why it can’t work for the same reasons in film. So unless you have the same criticisms of a connected comic universe, I don’t see what your issue is here.
Films and comics are very different. A comic has a small budget allowing a few voices to make it. Modern superhero movies have big budgets with 999,999,999 communities making them.
Yes, the budget is bigger, but I don’t see how that impacts it allowing for a shared universe.
The only real huge difference that may have some impact is that there are fewer releases annually per character compared to comics, but I don’t think that’s been limiting at all towards the individual films or characters as a whole. Most big crossover stuff are saved for their own movies, and the solo films still allow for the same depth (if not more as I said earlier) that independent, non-connected films do .
Let Zack Snyder do what he gorram wanted. For MoS, make the scene where Superman kills Zod make more sense. Do the “Martha” scene in BvS more elegantly, and have Clark researching Bruce before it. ZSJL is perfect. MoS 2 would have Brainiac, motion captured by Blake Ritson, with voice provided by Corey Burton. Cyborg solo movie would have Grid motion captured and voiced by Ray Fisher. David Hayter would play a role somewhere in the films.
I don’t like when DC limits their characters to being just one way from a singular vision. What’s great about DC is its diverse cast of characters, writers, and artists creating a unique and connected world that has a bit of everything for everyone.
I agree with trusting a director once they’ve been chosen and getting out of their way. But I think centering everything around Zack’s vision not only flopped from a financial sense but also polarized the fan base in a bad way.
Keep Zack in for certain solo films like Batman but don’t center the entire universe on that tone/style so other creators can come in and give other fans what they want too. Best of both worlds.
Thankfully DC has been going into more diverse visions with different film makers .
And speaking of unique visions:
When I was a kid I’d definitely think a Superman family drama wouldn’t be something I want BUT now it’s my favorite interpretation of the character.
Same for Doom Patrol, I barely remember the team from Teen Titans animated show and for sure wouldn’t of been interested in a stand a lone series but once we got this wild crazy thing I love it.
As for Suicide Squad (2016), when the Original Teaser came out is when I thought I wanted a dark-serious DC film but seeing James Gunn version his is the version I didn’t know I really wanted.
World’s Finest (I don’t know if people can sit through another version of origin stories for Batman and Superman, so we just start the universe right in the thick of things with a story that includes these two).
Wonder Woman (possibly another origin story).
Green Lantern (Superman cameo at the end)
Batman (solo story - debut of Robin)
The Flash (Batman cameo at the end)
Superman (Green Lantern Hal Jordan co-stars)
Justice League (Team-up to defeat Mongul - Hal Jordan possibly turns into Parallax)
The Flash 2 (debut of Kid Flash)
Teen Titans (Robin, Kid Flash, Cyborg, Beast Boy, Starfire)
Zatanna
Justice League 2 (Teen Titans help defeat Brainiac)
And continue on from there with endless possibilities…
It didn’t automatically set things in a dark and gritty universe. It was one character’s experience in one instance. And even then, it depicted a version of Krypton with characters riding dragons and other such fantasy elements.
Above: Pure Silly Comic Book Nonsense
I agree that the Green Lantern film should have been the first film of the DCEU, but I have no problem believing that GL and MoS could’ve happened in the same universe. (It’s a bit trickier trying to reconcile GL’s friendlier version of Amanda Waller with the one who has been seen in the Squad movies.) Justice League International happened in the same universe as Emerald Twilight, after all.
If I were to cite a DC film that would be entirely inappropriate as a starting point for a connected universe, it would be Batman Begins. That film systematically stripped out every sci-fi/fantasy element that would otherwise belong in a story about Batman fighting Ra’s Al Ghul, and it would have implicitly placed similar limits on the DC universe going forward. Christopher Nolan wisely chose not to place Man of Steel in the same universe as his Dark Knight trilogy, and that’s why MoS was in any place to be the starting point for the DCEU.
The reason I cite Man of Steel is purely because it was framed witha very singular and specific tone/setting: Superman in the “Real” world. Darker and more grounded.
Once again, I don’t dislike MoS and I don’t 100% hate its take on the character, but choosing to build off it leading into BvS was a mistake because it carried over those same ideas and tone to define the universe. In my opinion, this was very limiting for the films to come after because it made characters stuck to the real world style or made the films that broke from that tone feel disconnected and our of place.
You can have a MoS in a GL universe and I’ll buy it. But if you set the tone with MoS leading into BvS, it’s hard to believe Shazam! takes place in the same universe.
I didn’t have any problem accepting Shazam in the same universe. That film gets very, very bleak at times, especially when it comes to biological family dynamics.
Nor can I see MoS as “Superman in the real world.” Perhaps it’s “Superman in a world that responds realistically to the news that aliens exist,” but the movie dives so far into space opera in its opening prologue that I can’t take it as “realistic.”
That was my whole point. The MCU is nothing but a huge comedic sitcom with the exception of a few films that feel completely disconnected because they take themselves more seriously. And all of this is because Disney/marvel decided to connect their universe through this comedic tone. So tell me, how is that any different from the dceu? The problem was connecting these films in the first place. Anytime you go to watch a film like Jonah Hex, sgt rock, Adam strange, justice league dark, lobo, Batman, etc. you should be getting an INDIVIDUAL experience with different tones & styles. These films should always be able to stand by their own merits without being compared to a larger universe. Cinema isn’t television or comics.
In full fairness to the MCU, it started with Iron Man, which took itself seriously most of the time. In fact, one of the reasons I despise The Avengers with every ounce of my being is because it ruined the tone that had been established up front. I didn’t need the MCU to be as grimdark as The Ultimates, but I was expecting something a little more Tom Clancy and a little less “workplace sitcom.” (Thankfully, the Russo Brothers set the course back at least a little.)
I think there’s several ways to go with a DC movie franchise.
Connected and serialized, like Marvel.
Connected, firmly the same universe but each movie is a stand alone story. Knowledge of prior movies is helpful and potentially rewarding, but not required.
Loosely connected. Definitely stand alone movies. Prior events may be referenced, or not.
Completely stand alone.
The farther you go down that list, the more freedom you have with variety of tone and storytelling. The problem I see with DC, is they haven’t really defined which direction they’re trying to go in. There’s course corrections and reboots between Justice League, Zack Snyder’s Justice League, Suicide Squad, The Suicide Squad. There’s the stand-alone movies like The Joker. There’s The Batman, which is apparently based on Earth 2, when the multiverse hasn’t really been established in the movies. Oh wait, they’re establishing a multiverse in The Flash, after The Batman comes out, but it’s gonna feature 2 other completely different Batmans… in The Flash movie. It’s all a little bit chaotic and whiplash inducing when you try to make sense of what exactly they’re going for. Everything is connected, but everything is not connected…it’s magic
Ultimately, I don’t really care all that much to be honest, as long as the movies are entertaining, and I get to see my favorite characters do their thing on the screen. It’s just fun to sit here and play armchair producer.
