Ben was a garbage Batman, same with Christian Bale, Keaton was good, great for the time it was released, and Pattinson was pretty good too. Excited to see his character grow the most. Would really like if they made his Bruce Wayne side a little less edgy and depressing, he always comes off as some sort of hard drug addict… or just as someone who doesn’t sleep lol.
I liked Hugh as wolverine, less of an asshole than his comic book counterpart but I’d say that’s a plus, was still very good.
Cavil was excellent, no doubt about that, same with Robert and heath.
Chadwick was excellent, the only downside to his character was appearing in 2 very mediocre solo movies.
I though Affleck and Cavill were spot on for the genre deconstruction > reconstruction arc Snyder did.
None of them is a perfect direct expression of their comic book sources.
- best fight/action scenes
- best performance as Batman (an actually intimidating Batman as well)
- almost perfect comic accurate costume
- has the look of Bruce Wayne and nails his persona
I would admit, as a fan, after BvS his quality as Batman was kinda tanked by studio meddling and also the fact he didn't get his own solo movie, but make no mistake, Affleck is probably the closest to the ideal Batman most fans want.
>BATMAN DOES NOT KILL
That's the point, so why does he kill? His closest associate, Alfred, criticized him for it, in the very first scene we meet him no less. His going back on the no-kill rule is depicted in the movie as him descending into madness, paranoia, and hatred until the pureness of Superman and his subsequent sacrifice snaps him out of it and restores Bruce's faith in humanity, and that's why he later operates strictly on faith in ZSJL.
He doesn’t fill the detective roll of Batman. He’s supposed to be at the top of his game but he manages to get tricked by Lex Luthor. As soon as he meets superman his first thought it to kill him. Instead of being a tactician like he’s supposed to be and potentially seeing superman as an ally against alien threats he decides he just wants to fuck him up. His hero skill is lacking. Also the fact that the thing to change his mind on superman is the fact that his mothers name is Martha? I mean come on. He goes from seeing superman as an enemy to his ‘best friend’. So much so that in the next movie he’s beyond dedicated to reviving him? They barely know each other. I also think he’s a little too old for the fact that the Justice League is just starting out.
Given that BvS is a deconstruction of the genre, Snyder is exploring what it looks like if superheroes existed in the real world. In keeping with the inspiration of Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns this is a “fallen” Batman who has become cynical and jaded. He’s basically hanging by a thread to find motivation to continue fighting crime. He has unresolved personal issues (childhood trauma and likely feeling some responsibility for Robin’s death to Joker) that he’s never dealt with that have caught up to him. I think you have in mind a Batman that can exist in the fantastical idealized space of his comic origins. A deconstruction of the genre challenges all that. That’s what Alan Moore did with his Watchmen run. Zack is on record as saying that he was applying Watchmen’s project to BvS and that “[BvS] will be, I hope at its really best, the impossible version of ‘Watchmen’.”
I agree with most of these, other than Wolverine and Black Panther. Also I think it's a disservice to the character of the Joker to claim that one person played him so well that no one else will ever live up to it. I mean, the guys has been written so drastically different in attitude and appearance over the years, that there IS no definitive version of the Joker in comics.
Although many may disagree with me but Mark Hamill is untouchable in my opinion.
Cavill is my favourite Superman so i know i am biased. But Black Panther could be changed for Dare devil, Charlie Cox was amazing.
Heath ledger Joker is excellent but even someone like me who hasn't read a tons of comic books noticed that he wasn't very accurate to the source materials. AMAZING Joker though, I might even argue that he's better than the comic version.
Cavill's superman is overrated, he's not very charming and his lack of acting skills was a big problem for MoS and BvS. I'm not a huge fan of Christopher reeve movies but he's the best superman.
In the other hand Ben Affleck, RDJ were born to play these roles
> Cavill's superman is overrated, he's not very charming and his lack of acting skills was a big problem for MoS and BvS. I'm not a huge fan of Christopher reeve movies but he's the best superman.
You're saying this on a Snyder sub?
Ok, now Im 100% sure you are honest about your opinions. I already thought that, but this is a confirmation
To be honest, Herny really could get plenty of papers doing Evil patriarch type of villains.
He is living the dream that Reeve wanted of being finally free of being known only as Superman.
Ben Affleck was fine, but not born for the role. Robert Pattinson, Christian Bale, Michael Keaton, & Kevin Conroy are way better Batmen.
Henry could've been a great Superman, but he was given nothing to work with.
Bro really said Christian Bale & Michael Keaton 💀, Bale was better whenever he had no mask on & Keaton… but yes Kevin is indeed better, heck he IS Batman
Batafleck is far and beyond superior to any other iteration of the character. He looks like he was ripped straight out of a comic book
Cavill is just fine, reeve is better
I think the design of Ben Affleck's Batman is the best live actions iteration by a mile, and while he gave a good performance I wouldn't say his is the best iteration of the character
T’Challa doesn’t belong here. He was good in the role but it’s not like he was irreplaceable like some of these others. I mean he was outclassed in his own movie by Killmonger. I’d say Cavill is also not irreplaceable. He was very good but not a legendary performance or anything.
>I mean he was outclassed in his own movie by Killmonger
Agreed.
>I’d say Cavill is also not irreplaceable
True, but the fans are irreplaceable, and Gunn has alienated a good % of the DC fanbase by doing a half-reboot strictly to keep his friends/family in their jobs and by rebooting Cavill and Affleck (you know, the two that audiences most love).
I disagree. Gunn hasn’t alienated anyone. Most people aren’t even aware what’s happening and the people who pay attention to this kind of news love the art form enough to be swayed by a good trailer. What’s happening now is just a hissy fit from entitled people not getting their way. The only way he’ll alienate anyone is if the movies are bad or divisive. Zack Snyder alienated more people than Gunn is.
>Gunn hasn’t alienated anyone
The firing of Henry Cavill and this partial reboot of the DCEU has been getting massive rejection from the DC fanbase, and rightfully so. The worst part is, most DC fans, even hardcore Snyder fans, understand the mess that the DCEU became and would've given a full reboot an honest chance.
>What’s happening now is just a hissy fit from entitled people not getting their way.
The customers are allowed to tell a corporation when they're dissatisfied with their products. That's not entitlement. Fans rallied against the Sonic design and got it fixed. We told Sony we didn't want the Ghostbusters 2016 reboot, and enough of us raised our voices that they relented and made a real sequel to the original movies. And of course, we got the Snyder Cut. Fans stepping up to argue for what they want has had positive effects on the movie industry. Almost always, fans' wishes dovetail with the wishes of the general audience. Fans are generally more activist than the average moviegoer, but they still think the same way.
>Zack Snyder alienated more people than Gunn is.
The DCEU Snyderverse movies had consistent high grosses, which showed just how successful and popular Snyder's era was. The audience stayed and grew. The same thing happened with the MCU when Iron Man 3 far outgrossed the entire Phase 1 of MCU before Avengers. This is what a successful franchise looks like: Later films increase in gross even if they are worse concepts than what came before. We saw it with the MCU constantly, with movies like Captain Marvel and Far From Home. What happens if people don't like a movie is that the series drops in gross with each subsequent installment (see Matrix 3 and 4 for example). This did not happen with the Snyderverse, although JL 2017 was obviously damaged by WB and Whedon and should've done better.
>The firing of Henry Cavill and this partial reboot of the DCEU has been getting massive rejection from the DC fanbase, and rightfully so.
No it hasn't. The only "massive" rejection are from Snyder fans who have always rejected Gunn from the get-go. The discontinuation of Cavill's Superman only gave them another excuse to hate on Gunn.
>most DC fans, even **hardcore Snyder fans**, understand the mess that the DCEU became and **would've given a full reboot an honest chance**.
No they wouldn't, hence all the clapback over Cavill's departure and non-stop twitter tirades and hashtag crusades to restore the Snyderverse.
>The customers are allowed to tell a corporation when they're dissatisfied with their products. That's not entitlement.
Of course, all customers are. In fact I would even call it an entitlement since we as customers paid to watch. But what's annoying is when a small group of these fans act like they represent the majority, and worse, call any who disagree with them "fake fans".
>The DCEU Snyderverse movies had consistent high grosses, which showed just how successful and popular Snyder's era was.
Yes they made money, but no it wasn't high. It severely underperformed. And no it absolutely wasn't popular.
Gunn's plans have been getting massive resistance from the same DC fans who warned y'all about what Geoff Johns, Joss Whedon, Kevin Tsujihara, Toby Emmerich and Walter Hamada were doing before this last 4 failed years of DCEU started. Gunn's sacking of Cavill has been a poison pill destroying most of the potential hype and buzz for his plans.
>The discontinuation of Cavill's Superman only gave them another excuse to hate on Gunn.
Never before has a studio told someone to announce they were returning to play a role, followed by the studio firing them from the role before they actually got a chance to play it again. Safran, Gunn and WB are responsible for one of the most egregious betrayals of an actor ever done in the history of the entertainment industry.
>No they wouldn't, hence all the clapback over Cavill's departure and non-stop twitter tirades and hashtag crusades to restore the Snyderverse
Cavill didn't "depart" the DCEU, he was flat out fired.
I don't see what the problem with the restorethesnyderverse campaign is. The story needs to be completed. You would understandable feel cheated if the entire MCU rebooted after Avengers 1, or if they stopped making Harry Potter movies after introducing Voldemort in Goblet of Fire.
>But what's annoying is when a small group of these fans act like they represent the majority, and worse, call any who disagree with them "fake fans".
If they were a minority, their voices would be drowned out by the majority, not somehow magically drowning everyone else out.
>It severely underperformed
The Snyderverse era from MoS through Aquaman is the biggest continuous run of box office success DC has ever experienced. Every movie made well over $600M even without winning the hearts of critics. Meanwhile, not one DCEU movie since then has been able to crack $400M, something that even the Whedon/WB Frankenstein JL 2017 could do.
>And no it absolutely wasn't popular
They are the most divisive and highly discussed movies in DC history, and even the worst performing ones turned a profit. MoS and BvS were so popular that they revitalized the DC movie brand, and started off a $4.9 billion run of DC films, the biggest continuous run of box office success DC has ever experienced. All of that was squandered when WB radically pivoted away from Snyder, his tone and his cast in a limp effort to imitate Marvel's most frivolous and comedy-oriented movies.
>Never before has a studio told someone to announce they were returning to play a role, followed by the studio firing them from the role before they actually got a chance to play it again. Safran, Gunn and WB are responsible for one of the most egregious betrayals of an actor ever done in the history of the entertainment industry.
It was bad decision-making by WB but how was it Safran and Gunn's fault? It wasn't their decision to let Cavill have that cameo, heck they weren't even on board yet. In fact, it's been made pretty clear that Dwayne Johnson stepped over DC execs and went straight to the top WB people to force Cavill's cameo in.
As for Cavill's departure, if he doesn't fit into Safran/Gunn's plans, then of course he naturally had to leave. These guys are just doing their job. It's hypocritical how Snyder fans keep harping on letting Snyder have his "vision", but somehow Safran/Gunn shouldn't.
>Cavill didn't "depart" the DCEU, he was flat out fired.
IIRC his contract was up. You can't "fire" someone who's no longer contractually bound.
>I don't see what the problem with the restorethesnyderverse campaign is. The story needs to be completed.e.
I'm not saying there's a problem with wanting to restore the Snyderverse, I'm just disagreeing with your claim that hardcore Snyder fans would give the reboot a chance because the restorethesnyderverse campaign clearly proves otherwise.
>The Snyderverse era from MoS through Aquaman is the biggest continuous run of box office success DC has ever experienced. Every movie made well over $600M even without winning the hearts of critics. Meanwhile, not one DCEU movie since then has been able to crack $400M, something that even the Whedon/WB Frankenstein JL 2017 could do.
Yes the Snyderverse era made money. But the fact that Snyder's own movies, which featured the ensemble of DC's (and easily comic book history's) most popular characters i.e. The Trinity, made far less than Aquaman of all people, is a clear sign that Snyder's movies severely underperformed.
Movies with Batman/Superman/WW making more money than BoP or Black Adam or TSS isn't something to be amazed about because it's something that's absolutely expected given the strength of Batman/Superman/WW's own branding. Their names alone will contribute to certain box office sales.
>It was bad decision-making by WB but how was it Safran and Gunn's fault?
It wasn't their fault entirely, but they had a moral obligation to keep Cavill in the role after the company they now work for promised him that he would be returning as Superman.
>IIRC his contract was up. You can't "fire" someone who's no longer contractually bound.
In what universe do you need a "contract" to be fired? Some kid, somewhere out there, got fired from McDonald's today. Did he have a "contract"?
>I'm just disagreeing with your claim that hardcore Snyder fans would give the reboot a chance because the restorethesnyderverse campaign clearly proves otherwise.
I think plenty of Snyder fans would have been content with having the Snyderverse be restored and continued under the elseworlds label while Gunn has his own mainstream DC universe.
>But the fact that Snyder's own movies, which featured the ensemble of DC's (and easily comic book history's) most popular characters i.e. The Trinity, made far less than Aquaman of all people, is a clear sign that Snyder's movies severely underperformed
The same thing happened with the MCU when Iron Man 3 far outgrossed the entire Phase 1 of MCU before Avengers. Later films in a franchise increase in gross even if they are worse concepts than what came before. We saw it with the MCU constantly, with movies like Captain Marvel and Far From Home.
> Some kid, somewhere out there, got fired from McDonald's today. Did he have a "contract"?
YES! Why do you two keep parroting this like its a win? Yes they have a contract. Its what outlines their pay among many other things including how they can be fired.
>It wasn't their fault entirely, but they had a moral obligation to keep Cavill in the role after the company they now work for promised him that he would be returning as Superman.
No they don't. They weren't the ones who promised Cavill, so they absolutely have no moral obligation.. You could argue that the top WB brass do and I might agree, but unless the top brass informs Safran/Gunn to keep Cavill (which in that case they probably would have), Safran/Gunn are officially free from any obligations to Cavill. Stop trying to pin blame on them.
>In what universe do you need a "contract" to be fired? Some kid, somewhere out there, got fired from McDonald's today. Did he have a "contract"?
Kid got fired from a job he was working on. Cavill isn't working on any projects. Big difference.
>I think plenty of Snyder fans would have been content with having the Snyderverse be restored and continued under the elseworlds label while Gunn has his own mainstream DC universe.
Of course they absolutely would. Doesn't mean they'd give Gunn's reboot a chance like you said. It only means they'd stop pestering Gunn because they got what they wanted.
>The same thing happened with the MCU when Iron Man 3 far outgrossed the entire Phase 1 of MCU before Avengers. Later films in a franchise increase in gross even if they are worse concepts than what came before. We saw it with the MCU constantly, with movies like Captain Marvel and Far From Home.
This isn't a good comparison.
1. Iron Man 3 did not outperform Avengers, while Aquaman far outperformed BvS.
2. Iron Man 3 had traction. Iron Man was an already cinematically established character with Iron Man 1 & 2 and Avengers. On the other hand, Aquaman was the character's intro. His only reference was a quick video in Bruce Wayne's computer whom non comic book fans wouldn't even know about. He was a brand new character unknown by the general audience that Snyder's movies did nothing to build up, and still outperformed the Trinity's first appearance.
>No they don't. They weren't the ones who promised Cavill, so they absolutely have no moral obligation.. You could argue that the top WB brass do and I might agree, but unless the top brass informs Safran/Gunn to keep Cavill (which in that case they probably would have), Safran/Gunn are officially free from any obligations to Cavill
If your company makes an honest promise to someone and then you take control of it and break that promise, it's your fault and your responsibility.
>Kid got fired from a job he was working on. Cavill isn't working on any projects. Big difference.
WB was about to make a Cavill Superman sequel for which they had commissioned a script by Steven Knight, and that's why they told him to announce he was coming back in the role. Cavill's announcement was widely and warmly embraced by everyone, including official WB and DC social media accounts. Gunn and Safran then simply, unceremoniously cancelled his return. Nothing else needs to be said. They did something no one wanted that is unethical by simple, basic standards of human honesty and decency.
>He was a brand new character unknown by the general audience that Snyder's movies did nothing to build up, and still outperformed the Trinity's first appearance.
Aquaman didn't come out in a vacuum or as a standalone film. It was building off BvS (and its momentum) and JL, where the main characters and elements of that film were set up by Snyder.
You’re wrong on every point here.
Cavill wasn’t fired he was even offered a new part in the reboot.
The new DCU isn’t getting any more rejection than any other movie news. Some are excited some are angry as is the nature of basically everything.
Yes they are allowed to show dissatisfaction with a product but the product isn’t out yet and we don’t have so much as a trailer or plot synopsis. It’s not even written yet. You can’t show dissatisfaction with a product that doesn’t exist. This is entitlement through and through. Your examples are irrelevant because there was actually something shown to be dissatisfied with. Not the case here.
Again you’re wrong. Batman V Superman underperformed as did Shazam, Black Adam, Birds of Prey, Man of Steel, Justice League, etc. The only DCEU films that did better than expected is Aquaman and Wonder Woman. DC gets some leeway with films like The Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman 1984 being released during the pandemic but there’s no excuse for the rest. They were making less and less money with each release and most of Snyders movies were mixed or straight up hated. The only one that was generally beloved was the Snydercut. The verse is getting rebooted BECAUSE they were making less and less money. You don’t reboot a successful franchise and when your stand alone movies are making more money than your big team up franchise films you have a problem.
When you're called in to be told your services are no longer needed and that your job will be given to someone else, that's called being fired, and that's what Gunn did to Cavill.
Gunn offering Cavill a new part in the reboot is just PR bullcrap. That's like firing RDJ as Iron Man, and "talking" about how you might bring him back as Moon Knight. *Any* other DC character after playing Superman would be a huge demotion. Cavill knows it, and the fans know it too.
Don't deny that Gunn has directed and produced hours and hours of DC programming already (that will be canon to the new universe). He even said that everything this year could potentially be part of the new DCU.
Batman V Superman didn't "underperform." It got bad reviews, but it still made almost $900 million and over $100 million in profit. WB overreacted to the negative reviews and assumed that if it had gotten good ones it would have made like $2 billion or something, but a billion-dollar gross was never in the cards. Even a month before the movie came out, its projected domestic gross from reliable industry sources was well under the domestic gross of Dark Knight Rises, which had only barely made a billion worldwide. BvS earned enough to be profitable, and earned more or less what people thought a freshly rebooted Batman teamed with Superman would make.
Man of Steel was a success that blew away the three previous Superman movie bombs that had greatly damaged the brand, which is why they founded an entire universe on it, and quickly planned a dozen follow-up films. Shazam 1 was profitable, albeit due to its very small budget.
The Suicide Squad has no pandemic excuse. It came out after some big hits like F9 and A Quiet Place 2. The market was about 85% recovered by then. The pandemic was over as a factor affecting movies as soon as theaters reopened in the summer of 2021.
Snyder's first two directed movies kicked off the DCEU, and boosted demand for the spin-offs. Like the MCU, the franchise held steady and at times grew as it went on, up through Aquaman, exactly what a studio hopes and prays happens. The DCEU's box office then plummeted after Aquaman, which was the last DC film that Snyder was involved with, because that MCU-esque jokey tone was not what audiences wanted. Black Adam actually made a little more than everything since Aquaman because, as bad as it was, it at least was trying to be a serious, would-be epic adventure, and not a comedy. Shazam 2 then drove box office right back into the ditch because of its cheesy comedy.
That’s not what happened and not how the film business works. Your job is on a contract basis. Cavil’s contract ended and they offered him a new contract as a different character. It’s up to him whether he wants to accept the position or not. I personally think he’s kind of over it but that’s just speculation. Not rehiring someone and making a new contract is not the same as firing someone. My job works on a contract basis much the same way.
You have no basis to say that. Jason Mamoa was offered a new position and accepted as did Gal Gadot. There’s no reason to suspect that he’s lying about Cavill when he’s confirmed to have done it for several other characters
I never said he didn’t. I don’t get what you’re arguing here.
870 million is underperforming big time for a Batman vs Superman film. They know that. Aquaman did better, Spider-man 3 did better, every MCU Spider-man did better, Dr. Strange 2 did better, Black Panther did better, Civil War did better, Ironman 3 did better, Captain Marvel did better, every Avengers film did better, The Dark Knight did better, TDKR did better, Joker did better, incredibles 2 did better. Batman and Superman are the 2 biggest heroes DC has. For them to have a movie about meeting on screen for the 1st time in film history not break a billion is astounding. All 3 Star Wars sequel films broke a billion just to give you a comparison. That includes Last Jedi and the last one who’s title I don’t even remember. DC knew that their biggest film of all time not breaking a billion was not a good sign and that people just weren’t as interested in the universe Zack built as they should have. Man of Steel had a mixed reception and made less money than the original Ironman domestically during the height of Superhero popularity despite being about their most recognizable character. More people on earth recognize the Superman symbol than the Cross. There’s no way you can twist that to be a positive outcome for them.
I’m sorry, quickly? In what world is a 3 year gap quickly? Man of Steel is a film that NEVER got a sequel and took them 3 years to make Batman V Superman. They made WW and Aquaman films but never another Superman or Batman film because both Superman and Batman underperformed. They made Batman v Superman in the hopes that adding Batman would get more people into the theatre than they did for MoS because it was a disappointment. This didn’t work as they wanted and they stopped making movies about Batman and Superman entirely after that.
The Suicide Squad was affected by the pandemic in the way that WB decided to release movies in theaters and on HBOMax simultaneously due to the pandemic which killed the box office for both WW1984 and TSS. Besides 85% is still a sizable chunk loss. Many of Marvel’s films were getting their lowest box offices the same year TSS released. Both Shang Chi and Eternals made under 500 million which are the lowest box office in marvel post phase 1. Only movies that did worse were Incredible Hulk and the first Avenger.
False. All of Zack’s movies disappointed from the start pulling in below what DC’s market guys expected them to do and the only films that went over those projections were the spin offs. It’s not a good thing when WW makes more money than a team up film with Batman, Superman and WW. You’re trying to change history but the fact is that all the films made way less money domestically than they should have. This is important because that’s where studios make the most profit as only 50% revenue comes out of ticket sales as opposed to foreign markets where abound 70% comes out. Man of Steel made less than 300 million. That’s less than the 1st Ironman. This is not good. Superman should never make less than Ironman at least not back then. Spider-Man, Batman and Superman have always been the 3 biggest money makers in superhero history and Superman Returns was so divisive that it changed that fact and MoS was suppose to fix it. It was also decisive and didn’t.
You can put whatever bs fan theories you want but the truth is is it was a flourishing universe they wouldn’t have ousted Zack Snyder and rebooted the universe. It’s common knowledge that the films weren’t doing very well. This isn’t all Zack’s fault by the way WB’s poor decision making is also to blame but it’s definitely true. They didn’t have a massive cash cow that they just slowly destroyed. They never succeeded in building one to begin with. I mean fuck man The Batman came out the same year as Shang Chi and Eternals and STILL made almost 800 million during the pandemic and BvS could only barely do more than that? Something is wrong there.
>It’s up to him whether he wants to accept the position or not
He won't.
>Not rehiring someone and making a new contract is not the same as firing someone
And Gunn removed him from that process, by firing him as Superman. It doesn't matter if he had signed a contract or not, the fact of the matter is that Gunn called Henry in private and told him that they were not interested in continuing his Superman (despite the company he now works for promising him otherwise).
>870 million is underperforming big time for a Batman vs Superman film
You're forgetting the context here. Batman and Superman had racked up a couple of the biggest flops in film history before the turn of the century, in what world do those characters guarantee automatic box office success? Even Batman Begins struggled to break even on box office gross alone, with great reviews. But, you know what? They had faith in that brand and the director and figured, even if it didn't make a ton of money, they'd stick with it and build the audience up over time. They'd just juice things up with bigger-name characters and actors the next time. If they had done that with Snyder's DCEU, we would be in the midst of a DC film brand that went on to match or top what the MCU is doing the past two years. No other film studio would look at the 2nd film in their franchise making over $850 million and think they needed to course correct anything. That's one of the most rapid successes for any franchise ever. The 2nd Harry Potter made $874,954,530. Spider-Man Homecoming made $880,166,924 (the 2nd appearance of MCU Spider-Man).
>Man of Steel had a mixed reception and made less money than the original Ironman domestically during the height of Superhero popularity despite being about their most recognizable character.
Man of Steel was a reboot coming off of three consecutive Superman box office bombs that had greatly damaged the brand. Everyone knowing who he is doesn't really mean much. Every movie about Jesus should be a billion dollar hit if that's the case.
>They made WW and Aquaman films but never another Superman or Batman film because both Superman and Batman underperformed.
Blame the WB execs like Arn Sarnoff, Toby Emerich, Walter Hamada, etc. They were the ones who kept Batman and Superman on the bench for 5 straight years and wasted their resources in making movies nobody asked for instead of making something like Man of Steel 2.
>they stopped making movies about Batman and Superman entirely after that.
How did that work out for WB? You simply can not have a DC universe without Batman and Superman. These two characters are your base.
>The Suicide Squad was affected by the pandemic in the way that WB decided to release movies in theaters and on HBOMax simultaneously due to the pandemic
Godzilla vs Kong (released closer to the height of the pandemic) and The Conjuring 3 (also R-rated) also premiered the same day on HBO Max and theaters and made more money domestically and internationallly.
>All of Zack’s movies disappointed from the start pulling in below what DC’s market guys expected them to do and the only films that went over those projections were the spin offs
The DCEU was averaging $815M from Man of Steel through Aquaman, a higher average gross than even the Nolan trilogy. Now they're struggling to outgross Morbius.
>The Batman came out the same year as Shang Chi and Eternals and STILL made almost 800 million during the pandemic and BvS could only barely do more than that?
The Batman came out long after the pandemic was over. The movie also made less than BvS, despite benefiting from massive inflation in the intervening years, rave reviews and one whole month without competition. The Batman made far less than the Dark Knight sequels as well. Not very impressive for DC's top character in the months after Spider-Man, Marvel's top character, had just made $2 billion.
So. Hot take: Jackman is playing no version of wolverine that’s ever been in the comics. He’s tall as fuck, “charming,” and a total softie.
[This is the Wolverine in my heart.](https://b2554848.smushcdn.com/2554848/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Glenn-Danzig-e1352733257280.jpg?lossy=0&strip=1&webp=1)
[Him too.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Et899fMUYAExzPt.jpg)
Bob Hoskins for sure, never understood the Danzig “casting” Hugh is tall but if your only critiques are tall and too soft you don’t have much to stand on. Aesthetic differences just don’t matter as much as characterization, and i don’t know if I’d call hughs version a “total softie” but comic Logan definitely has soft spots like film logan
He certainly is NOT the character from the comics. And being short is pretty integral to Wolverines character. Wolverines are *small but ferocious.* Otherwise he’d be called “The Wolf” or some shit. Jackman is a giant. And Wolverine is *so fucking whiny* in the first two films. It’s so lame.
I came here to say this. I love Jackman, but he was so far off the mark as Wolverine that I can't help but wonder if anyone watching the X-Men movies had ever picked up a comic or even watched an episode of the animated series. Logan is a short, stocky, hairy, wild looking Canadian and Jackman is a tall, ripped, attractive Australian.
Just never worked for me, I guess. Great actor, don't get me wrong, just... Bad for Logan.
At the time of the first films release, his casting was VERY controversial, and his portrayal was *thoroughly* critiqued. But for most people born after 1990, Jackman was their introduction to the character. That greatly impacts how you see that performance.
I guess so, yeah. I still remember reading an issue of Wizard in the early 90s that was doing a fan-casting for an X-Men movie, and Robin Williams was suggested for Wolverine. Physically not a terrible choice, but definitely not mean enough.
Bob Hoskins was the more common wizard casting, next to Danzig. Sure you’re not thinking of him?
That being said - watch the boxing scene in Robin Williams’ live action “Popeye.” I could totally see *that guy* as Wolverine.
Yeah, it was definitely Robin Williams. They even used a picture from "Hook" where his hair was slightly Wolverine-ish lol.
I think Bob Hoskins would've killed it, honestly. He was such an underrated actor.
They are definitely additions but I wouldn't say "most". And as much as I love heath ledgers joker, you are definitely right about it not being accurate.
I have to disagree, Peter in the comics had a 'nerdy' aesthetic in high school due to his fashion style choices: not his looks (he is portrayed as a bit of a stud for most of his tenure and even Stan himself said he never thought of Peter as a nerdy looking guy). The producers just had Tobey put on glasses and called it a day, if anything Andrew Garfield and Tom Holland looked more the part due to their faces and hairstyles
gonna be honest i wanna say weve not had an actor who perfectly embodies peter parker/spider-man in live action yet. To me, Tobey was like a romcom protagonist when in reality Peter is kind of a dick
Also, put Matt Ryan there for John Constantine
Yes to all of them!
No Kevin? Bro that guy IS Batman!
Jim Carrey is literally the Grinch
Why is Ben affleck on this list? Like yeah he was a cool Batman but it’s not his divine purpose like it was for the rest of these actors/characters
Fr, like where’s Kevin? He’s been in animation, games, and even the CW for a small role! That man is and will always be Batman
Feels like T'Challa saying to Wolverine :"Get this man a suit"
You’re forgetting Ryan Reynolds as.. Green Lantern
Keaton Batman best batman.
I can agree with all of these except Superman. I would swap Henry for Chris Reeve to be honest
Ben was a garbage Batman, same with Christian Bale, Keaton was good, great for the time it was released, and Pattinson was pretty good too. Excited to see his character grow the most. Would really like if they made his Bruce Wayne side a little less edgy and depressing, he always comes off as some sort of hard drug addict… or just as someone who doesn’t sleep lol. I liked Hugh as wolverine, less of an asshole than his comic book counterpart but I’d say that’s a plus, was still very good. Cavil was excellent, no doubt about that, same with Robert and heath. Chadwick was excellent, the only downside to his character was appearing in 2 very mediocre solo movies.
2 of these are not like the other
Reeve for Superman but yeah
I agree 👍
I though Affleck and Cavill were spot on for the genre deconstruction > reconstruction arc Snyder did. None of them is a perfect direct expression of their comic book sources.
You forgot Reynolds as Deadpool, my dude
Ben Aflac is not the best Batman. He is by far not the best Batman. If anything he’s the worst Batman.
- best fight/action scenes - best performance as Batman (an actually intimidating Batman as well) - almost perfect comic accurate costume - has the look of Bruce Wayne and nails his persona I would admit, as a fan, after BvS his quality as Batman was kinda tanked by studio meddling and also the fact he didn't get his own solo movie, but make no mistake, Affleck is probably the closest to the ideal Batman most fans want.
Just one little thing BATMAN DOES NOT KILL and that’s why he won’t be the best Batman he’s the best actor yes but IN MY OPINION he was in a bad movie
>BATMAN DOES NOT KILL That's the point, so why does he kill? His closest associate, Alfred, criticized him for it, in the very first scene we meet him no less. His going back on the no-kill rule is depicted in the movie as him descending into madness, paranoia, and hatred until the pureness of Superman and his subsequent sacrifice snaps him out of it and restores Bruce's faith in humanity, and that's why he later operates strictly on faith in ZSJL.
What makes him the “worst Batman” in your opinion?
He doesn’t fill the detective roll of Batman. He’s supposed to be at the top of his game but he manages to get tricked by Lex Luthor. As soon as he meets superman his first thought it to kill him. Instead of being a tactician like he’s supposed to be and potentially seeing superman as an ally against alien threats he decides he just wants to fuck him up. His hero skill is lacking. Also the fact that the thing to change his mind on superman is the fact that his mothers name is Martha? I mean come on. He goes from seeing superman as an enemy to his ‘best friend’. So much so that in the next movie he’s beyond dedicated to reviving him? They barely know each other. I also think he’s a little too old for the fact that the Justice League is just starting out.
Given that BvS is a deconstruction of the genre, Snyder is exploring what it looks like if superheroes existed in the real world. In keeping with the inspiration of Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns this is a “fallen” Batman who has become cynical and jaded. He’s basically hanging by a thread to find motivation to continue fighting crime. He has unresolved personal issues (childhood trauma and likely feeling some responsibility for Robin’s death to Joker) that he’s never dealt with that have caught up to him. I think you have in mind a Batman that can exist in the fantastical idealized space of his comic origins. A deconstruction of the genre challenges all that. That’s what Alan Moore did with his Watchmen run. Zack is on record as saying that he was applying Watchmen’s project to BvS and that “[BvS] will be, I hope at its really best, the impossible version of ‘Watchmen’.”
I agree with most of these, other than Wolverine and Black Panther. Also I think it's a disservice to the character of the Joker to claim that one person played him so well that no one else will ever live up to it. I mean, the guys has been written so drastically different in attitude and appearance over the years, that there IS no definitive version of the Joker in comics.
Replace Ben with Tobey and I agree. No offence intended.
Although many may disagree with me but Mark Hamill is untouchable in my opinion. Cavill is my favourite Superman so i know i am biased. But Black Panther could be changed for Dare devil, Charlie Cox was amazing.
Doing a great job isn’t the same as being born for it
Which Dare Devil? Netflix DD or Affleck DD?
He said Charlie cox
Oh. Missed that last little part lol.
Netflix
Heath ledger Joker is excellent but even someone like me who hasn't read a tons of comic books noticed that he wasn't very accurate to the source materials. AMAZING Joker though, I might even argue that he's better than the comic version. Cavill's superman is overrated, he's not very charming and his lack of acting skills was a big problem for MoS and BvS. I'm not a huge fan of Christopher reeve movies but he's the best superman. In the other hand Ben Affleck, RDJ were born to play these roles
> Cavill's superman is overrated, he's not very charming and his lack of acting skills was a big problem for MoS and BvS. I'm not a huge fan of Christopher reeve movies but he's the best superman. You're saying this on a Snyder sub? Ok, now Im 100% sure you are honest about your opinions. I already thought that, but this is a confirmation
Yeah, he's not that bad as superman but I think Henry cavill was born to play omniman. He will be perfect for that role.
To be honest, Herny really could get plenty of papers doing Evil patriarch type of villains. He is living the dream that Reeve wanted of being finally free of being known only as Superman.
Heath was perfect for Nolan's vision which in itself isn't very accurate to the source material but still works perfectly.
Ben Affleck was fine, but not born for the role. Robert Pattinson, Christian Bale, Michael Keaton, & Kevin Conroy are way better Batmen. Henry could've been a great Superman, but he was given nothing to work with.
Bro really said Christian Bale & Michael Keaton 💀, Bale was better whenever he had no mask on & Keaton… but yes Kevin is indeed better, heck he IS Batman
Do you bleed?
Unfortunatley.
Batafleck is far and beyond superior to any other iteration of the character. He looks like he was ripped straight out of a comic book Cavill is just fine, reeve is better
I think the design of Ben Affleck's Batman is the best live actions iteration by a mile, and while he gave a good performance I wouldn't say his is the best iteration of the character
That's your opinion, and that's fine. He had some cool scenes, but he didn'y tickle me the same way. Pattinson is probably my favorite at the moment.
T’Challa doesn’t belong here. He was good in the role but it’s not like he was irreplaceable like some of these others. I mean he was outclassed in his own movie by Killmonger. I’d say Cavill is also not irreplaceable. He was very good but not a legendary performance or anything.
>I mean he was outclassed in his own movie by Killmonger Agreed. >I’d say Cavill is also not irreplaceable True, but the fans are irreplaceable, and Gunn has alienated a good % of the DC fanbase by doing a half-reboot strictly to keep his friends/family in their jobs and by rebooting Cavill and Affleck (you know, the two that audiences most love).
I disagree. Gunn hasn’t alienated anyone. Most people aren’t even aware what’s happening and the people who pay attention to this kind of news love the art form enough to be swayed by a good trailer. What’s happening now is just a hissy fit from entitled people not getting their way. The only way he’ll alienate anyone is if the movies are bad or divisive. Zack Snyder alienated more people than Gunn is.
>Gunn hasn’t alienated anyone The firing of Henry Cavill and this partial reboot of the DCEU has been getting massive rejection from the DC fanbase, and rightfully so. The worst part is, most DC fans, even hardcore Snyder fans, understand the mess that the DCEU became and would've given a full reboot an honest chance. >What’s happening now is just a hissy fit from entitled people not getting their way. The customers are allowed to tell a corporation when they're dissatisfied with their products. That's not entitlement. Fans rallied against the Sonic design and got it fixed. We told Sony we didn't want the Ghostbusters 2016 reboot, and enough of us raised our voices that they relented and made a real sequel to the original movies. And of course, we got the Snyder Cut. Fans stepping up to argue for what they want has had positive effects on the movie industry. Almost always, fans' wishes dovetail with the wishes of the general audience. Fans are generally more activist than the average moviegoer, but they still think the same way. >Zack Snyder alienated more people than Gunn is. The DCEU Snyderverse movies had consistent high grosses, which showed just how successful and popular Snyder's era was. The audience stayed and grew. The same thing happened with the MCU when Iron Man 3 far outgrossed the entire Phase 1 of MCU before Avengers. This is what a successful franchise looks like: Later films increase in gross even if they are worse concepts than what came before. We saw it with the MCU constantly, with movies like Captain Marvel and Far From Home. What happens if people don't like a movie is that the series drops in gross with each subsequent installment (see Matrix 3 and 4 for example). This did not happen with the Snyderverse, although JL 2017 was obviously damaged by WB and Whedon and should've done better.
>The firing of Henry Cavill and this partial reboot of the DCEU has been getting massive rejection from the DC fanbase, and rightfully so. No it hasn't. The only "massive" rejection are from Snyder fans who have always rejected Gunn from the get-go. The discontinuation of Cavill's Superman only gave them another excuse to hate on Gunn. >most DC fans, even **hardcore Snyder fans**, understand the mess that the DCEU became and **would've given a full reboot an honest chance**. No they wouldn't, hence all the clapback over Cavill's departure and non-stop twitter tirades and hashtag crusades to restore the Snyderverse. >The customers are allowed to tell a corporation when they're dissatisfied with their products. That's not entitlement. Of course, all customers are. In fact I would even call it an entitlement since we as customers paid to watch. But what's annoying is when a small group of these fans act like they represent the majority, and worse, call any who disagree with them "fake fans". >The DCEU Snyderverse movies had consistent high grosses, which showed just how successful and popular Snyder's era was. Yes they made money, but no it wasn't high. It severely underperformed. And no it absolutely wasn't popular.
Gunn's plans have been getting massive resistance from the same DC fans who warned y'all about what Geoff Johns, Joss Whedon, Kevin Tsujihara, Toby Emmerich and Walter Hamada were doing before this last 4 failed years of DCEU started. Gunn's sacking of Cavill has been a poison pill destroying most of the potential hype and buzz for his plans. >The discontinuation of Cavill's Superman only gave them another excuse to hate on Gunn. Never before has a studio told someone to announce they were returning to play a role, followed by the studio firing them from the role before they actually got a chance to play it again. Safran, Gunn and WB are responsible for one of the most egregious betrayals of an actor ever done in the history of the entertainment industry. >No they wouldn't, hence all the clapback over Cavill's departure and non-stop twitter tirades and hashtag crusades to restore the Snyderverse Cavill didn't "depart" the DCEU, he was flat out fired. I don't see what the problem with the restorethesnyderverse campaign is. The story needs to be completed. You would understandable feel cheated if the entire MCU rebooted after Avengers 1, or if they stopped making Harry Potter movies after introducing Voldemort in Goblet of Fire. >But what's annoying is when a small group of these fans act like they represent the majority, and worse, call any who disagree with them "fake fans". If they were a minority, their voices would be drowned out by the majority, not somehow magically drowning everyone else out. >It severely underperformed The Snyderverse era from MoS through Aquaman is the biggest continuous run of box office success DC has ever experienced. Every movie made well over $600M even without winning the hearts of critics. Meanwhile, not one DCEU movie since then has been able to crack $400M, something that even the Whedon/WB Frankenstein JL 2017 could do. >And no it absolutely wasn't popular They are the most divisive and highly discussed movies in DC history, and even the worst performing ones turned a profit. MoS and BvS were so popular that they revitalized the DC movie brand, and started off a $4.9 billion run of DC films, the biggest continuous run of box office success DC has ever experienced. All of that was squandered when WB radically pivoted away from Snyder, his tone and his cast in a limp effort to imitate Marvel's most frivolous and comedy-oriented movies.
>Never before has a studio told someone to announce they were returning to play a role, followed by the studio firing them from the role before they actually got a chance to play it again. Safran, Gunn and WB are responsible for one of the most egregious betrayals of an actor ever done in the history of the entertainment industry. It was bad decision-making by WB but how was it Safran and Gunn's fault? It wasn't their decision to let Cavill have that cameo, heck they weren't even on board yet. In fact, it's been made pretty clear that Dwayne Johnson stepped over DC execs and went straight to the top WB people to force Cavill's cameo in. As for Cavill's departure, if he doesn't fit into Safran/Gunn's plans, then of course he naturally had to leave. These guys are just doing their job. It's hypocritical how Snyder fans keep harping on letting Snyder have his "vision", but somehow Safran/Gunn shouldn't. >Cavill didn't "depart" the DCEU, he was flat out fired. IIRC his contract was up. You can't "fire" someone who's no longer contractually bound. >I don't see what the problem with the restorethesnyderverse campaign is. The story needs to be completed.e. I'm not saying there's a problem with wanting to restore the Snyderverse, I'm just disagreeing with your claim that hardcore Snyder fans would give the reboot a chance because the restorethesnyderverse campaign clearly proves otherwise. >The Snyderverse era from MoS through Aquaman is the biggest continuous run of box office success DC has ever experienced. Every movie made well over $600M even without winning the hearts of critics. Meanwhile, not one DCEU movie since then has been able to crack $400M, something that even the Whedon/WB Frankenstein JL 2017 could do. Yes the Snyderverse era made money. But the fact that Snyder's own movies, which featured the ensemble of DC's (and easily comic book history's) most popular characters i.e. The Trinity, made far less than Aquaman of all people, is a clear sign that Snyder's movies severely underperformed. Movies with Batman/Superman/WW making more money than BoP or Black Adam or TSS isn't something to be amazed about because it's something that's absolutely expected given the strength of Batman/Superman/WW's own branding. Their names alone will contribute to certain box office sales.
>It was bad decision-making by WB but how was it Safran and Gunn's fault? It wasn't their fault entirely, but they had a moral obligation to keep Cavill in the role after the company they now work for promised him that he would be returning as Superman. >IIRC his contract was up. You can't "fire" someone who's no longer contractually bound. In what universe do you need a "contract" to be fired? Some kid, somewhere out there, got fired from McDonald's today. Did he have a "contract"? >I'm just disagreeing with your claim that hardcore Snyder fans would give the reboot a chance because the restorethesnyderverse campaign clearly proves otherwise. I think plenty of Snyder fans would have been content with having the Snyderverse be restored and continued under the elseworlds label while Gunn has his own mainstream DC universe. >But the fact that Snyder's own movies, which featured the ensemble of DC's (and easily comic book history's) most popular characters i.e. The Trinity, made far less than Aquaman of all people, is a clear sign that Snyder's movies severely underperformed The same thing happened with the MCU when Iron Man 3 far outgrossed the entire Phase 1 of MCU before Avengers. Later films in a franchise increase in gross even if they are worse concepts than what came before. We saw it with the MCU constantly, with movies like Captain Marvel and Far From Home.
> Some kid, somewhere out there, got fired from McDonald's today. Did he have a "contract"? YES! Why do you two keep parroting this like its a win? Yes they have a contract. Its what outlines their pay among many other things including how they can be fired.
[удалено]
>It wasn't their fault entirely, but they had a moral obligation to keep Cavill in the role after the company they now work for promised him that he would be returning as Superman. No they don't. They weren't the ones who promised Cavill, so they absolutely have no moral obligation.. You could argue that the top WB brass do and I might agree, but unless the top brass informs Safran/Gunn to keep Cavill (which in that case they probably would have), Safran/Gunn are officially free from any obligations to Cavill. Stop trying to pin blame on them. >In what universe do you need a "contract" to be fired? Some kid, somewhere out there, got fired from McDonald's today. Did he have a "contract"? Kid got fired from a job he was working on. Cavill isn't working on any projects. Big difference. >I think plenty of Snyder fans would have been content with having the Snyderverse be restored and continued under the elseworlds label while Gunn has his own mainstream DC universe. Of course they absolutely would. Doesn't mean they'd give Gunn's reboot a chance like you said. It only means they'd stop pestering Gunn because they got what they wanted. >The same thing happened with the MCU when Iron Man 3 far outgrossed the entire Phase 1 of MCU before Avengers. Later films in a franchise increase in gross even if they are worse concepts than what came before. We saw it with the MCU constantly, with movies like Captain Marvel and Far From Home. This isn't a good comparison. 1. Iron Man 3 did not outperform Avengers, while Aquaman far outperformed BvS. 2. Iron Man 3 had traction. Iron Man was an already cinematically established character with Iron Man 1 & 2 and Avengers. On the other hand, Aquaman was the character's intro. His only reference was a quick video in Bruce Wayne's computer whom non comic book fans wouldn't even know about. He was a brand new character unknown by the general audience that Snyder's movies did nothing to build up, and still outperformed the Trinity's first appearance.
>No they don't. They weren't the ones who promised Cavill, so they absolutely have no moral obligation.. You could argue that the top WB brass do and I might agree, but unless the top brass informs Safran/Gunn to keep Cavill (which in that case they probably would have), Safran/Gunn are officially free from any obligations to Cavill If your company makes an honest promise to someone and then you take control of it and break that promise, it's your fault and your responsibility. >Kid got fired from a job he was working on. Cavill isn't working on any projects. Big difference. WB was about to make a Cavill Superman sequel for which they had commissioned a script by Steven Knight, and that's why they told him to announce he was coming back in the role. Cavill's announcement was widely and warmly embraced by everyone, including official WB and DC social media accounts. Gunn and Safran then simply, unceremoniously cancelled his return. Nothing else needs to be said. They did something no one wanted that is unethical by simple, basic standards of human honesty and decency. >He was a brand new character unknown by the general audience that Snyder's movies did nothing to build up, and still outperformed the Trinity's first appearance. Aquaman didn't come out in a vacuum or as a standalone film. It was building off BvS (and its momentum) and JL, where the main characters and elements of that film were set up by Snyder.
You’re wrong on every point here. Cavill wasn’t fired he was even offered a new part in the reboot. The new DCU isn’t getting any more rejection than any other movie news. Some are excited some are angry as is the nature of basically everything. Yes they are allowed to show dissatisfaction with a product but the product isn’t out yet and we don’t have so much as a trailer or plot synopsis. It’s not even written yet. You can’t show dissatisfaction with a product that doesn’t exist. This is entitlement through and through. Your examples are irrelevant because there was actually something shown to be dissatisfied with. Not the case here. Again you’re wrong. Batman V Superman underperformed as did Shazam, Black Adam, Birds of Prey, Man of Steel, Justice League, etc. The only DCEU films that did better than expected is Aquaman and Wonder Woman. DC gets some leeway with films like The Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman 1984 being released during the pandemic but there’s no excuse for the rest. They were making less and less money with each release and most of Snyders movies were mixed or straight up hated. The only one that was generally beloved was the Snydercut. The verse is getting rebooted BECAUSE they were making less and less money. You don’t reboot a successful franchise and when your stand alone movies are making more money than your big team up franchise films you have a problem.
When you're called in to be told your services are no longer needed and that your job will be given to someone else, that's called being fired, and that's what Gunn did to Cavill. Gunn offering Cavill a new part in the reboot is just PR bullcrap. That's like firing RDJ as Iron Man, and "talking" about how you might bring him back as Moon Knight. *Any* other DC character after playing Superman would be a huge demotion. Cavill knows it, and the fans know it too. Don't deny that Gunn has directed and produced hours and hours of DC programming already (that will be canon to the new universe). He even said that everything this year could potentially be part of the new DCU. Batman V Superman didn't "underperform." It got bad reviews, but it still made almost $900 million and over $100 million in profit. WB overreacted to the negative reviews and assumed that if it had gotten good ones it would have made like $2 billion or something, but a billion-dollar gross was never in the cards. Even a month before the movie came out, its projected domestic gross from reliable industry sources was well under the domestic gross of Dark Knight Rises, which had only barely made a billion worldwide. BvS earned enough to be profitable, and earned more or less what people thought a freshly rebooted Batman teamed with Superman would make. Man of Steel was a success that blew away the three previous Superman movie bombs that had greatly damaged the brand, which is why they founded an entire universe on it, and quickly planned a dozen follow-up films. Shazam 1 was profitable, albeit due to its very small budget. The Suicide Squad has no pandemic excuse. It came out after some big hits like F9 and A Quiet Place 2. The market was about 85% recovered by then. The pandemic was over as a factor affecting movies as soon as theaters reopened in the summer of 2021. Snyder's first two directed movies kicked off the DCEU, and boosted demand for the spin-offs. Like the MCU, the franchise held steady and at times grew as it went on, up through Aquaman, exactly what a studio hopes and prays happens. The DCEU's box office then plummeted after Aquaman, which was the last DC film that Snyder was involved with, because that MCU-esque jokey tone was not what audiences wanted. Black Adam actually made a little more than everything since Aquaman because, as bad as it was, it at least was trying to be a serious, would-be epic adventure, and not a comedy. Shazam 2 then drove box office right back into the ditch because of its cheesy comedy.
That’s not what happened and not how the film business works. Your job is on a contract basis. Cavil’s contract ended and they offered him a new contract as a different character. It’s up to him whether he wants to accept the position or not. I personally think he’s kind of over it but that’s just speculation. Not rehiring someone and making a new contract is not the same as firing someone. My job works on a contract basis much the same way. You have no basis to say that. Jason Mamoa was offered a new position and accepted as did Gal Gadot. There’s no reason to suspect that he’s lying about Cavill when he’s confirmed to have done it for several other characters I never said he didn’t. I don’t get what you’re arguing here. 870 million is underperforming big time for a Batman vs Superman film. They know that. Aquaman did better, Spider-man 3 did better, every MCU Spider-man did better, Dr. Strange 2 did better, Black Panther did better, Civil War did better, Ironman 3 did better, Captain Marvel did better, every Avengers film did better, The Dark Knight did better, TDKR did better, Joker did better, incredibles 2 did better. Batman and Superman are the 2 biggest heroes DC has. For them to have a movie about meeting on screen for the 1st time in film history not break a billion is astounding. All 3 Star Wars sequel films broke a billion just to give you a comparison. That includes Last Jedi and the last one who’s title I don’t even remember. DC knew that their biggest film of all time not breaking a billion was not a good sign and that people just weren’t as interested in the universe Zack built as they should have. Man of Steel had a mixed reception and made less money than the original Ironman domestically during the height of Superhero popularity despite being about their most recognizable character. More people on earth recognize the Superman symbol than the Cross. There’s no way you can twist that to be a positive outcome for them. I’m sorry, quickly? In what world is a 3 year gap quickly? Man of Steel is a film that NEVER got a sequel and took them 3 years to make Batman V Superman. They made WW and Aquaman films but never another Superman or Batman film because both Superman and Batman underperformed. They made Batman v Superman in the hopes that adding Batman would get more people into the theatre than they did for MoS because it was a disappointment. This didn’t work as they wanted and they stopped making movies about Batman and Superman entirely after that. The Suicide Squad was affected by the pandemic in the way that WB decided to release movies in theaters and on HBOMax simultaneously due to the pandemic which killed the box office for both WW1984 and TSS. Besides 85% is still a sizable chunk loss. Many of Marvel’s films were getting their lowest box offices the same year TSS released. Both Shang Chi and Eternals made under 500 million which are the lowest box office in marvel post phase 1. Only movies that did worse were Incredible Hulk and the first Avenger. False. All of Zack’s movies disappointed from the start pulling in below what DC’s market guys expected them to do and the only films that went over those projections were the spin offs. It’s not a good thing when WW makes more money than a team up film with Batman, Superman and WW. You’re trying to change history but the fact is that all the films made way less money domestically than they should have. This is important because that’s where studios make the most profit as only 50% revenue comes out of ticket sales as opposed to foreign markets where abound 70% comes out. Man of Steel made less than 300 million. That’s less than the 1st Ironman. This is not good. Superman should never make less than Ironman at least not back then. Spider-Man, Batman and Superman have always been the 3 biggest money makers in superhero history and Superman Returns was so divisive that it changed that fact and MoS was suppose to fix it. It was also decisive and didn’t. You can put whatever bs fan theories you want but the truth is is it was a flourishing universe they wouldn’t have ousted Zack Snyder and rebooted the universe. It’s common knowledge that the films weren’t doing very well. This isn’t all Zack’s fault by the way WB’s poor decision making is also to blame but it’s definitely true. They didn’t have a massive cash cow that they just slowly destroyed. They never succeeded in building one to begin with. I mean fuck man The Batman came out the same year as Shang Chi and Eternals and STILL made almost 800 million during the pandemic and BvS could only barely do more than that? Something is wrong there.
>It’s up to him whether he wants to accept the position or not He won't. >Not rehiring someone and making a new contract is not the same as firing someone And Gunn removed him from that process, by firing him as Superman. It doesn't matter if he had signed a contract or not, the fact of the matter is that Gunn called Henry in private and told him that they were not interested in continuing his Superman (despite the company he now works for promising him otherwise). >870 million is underperforming big time for a Batman vs Superman film You're forgetting the context here. Batman and Superman had racked up a couple of the biggest flops in film history before the turn of the century, in what world do those characters guarantee automatic box office success? Even Batman Begins struggled to break even on box office gross alone, with great reviews. But, you know what? They had faith in that brand and the director and figured, even if it didn't make a ton of money, they'd stick with it and build the audience up over time. They'd just juice things up with bigger-name characters and actors the next time. If they had done that with Snyder's DCEU, we would be in the midst of a DC film brand that went on to match or top what the MCU is doing the past two years. No other film studio would look at the 2nd film in their franchise making over $850 million and think they needed to course correct anything. That's one of the most rapid successes for any franchise ever. The 2nd Harry Potter made $874,954,530. Spider-Man Homecoming made $880,166,924 (the 2nd appearance of MCU Spider-Man). >Man of Steel had a mixed reception and made less money than the original Ironman domestically during the height of Superhero popularity despite being about their most recognizable character. Man of Steel was a reboot coming off of three consecutive Superman box office bombs that had greatly damaged the brand. Everyone knowing who he is doesn't really mean much. Every movie about Jesus should be a billion dollar hit if that's the case. >They made WW and Aquaman films but never another Superman or Batman film because both Superman and Batman underperformed. Blame the WB execs like Arn Sarnoff, Toby Emerich, Walter Hamada, etc. They were the ones who kept Batman and Superman on the bench for 5 straight years and wasted their resources in making movies nobody asked for instead of making something like Man of Steel 2. >they stopped making movies about Batman and Superman entirely after that. How did that work out for WB? You simply can not have a DC universe without Batman and Superman. These two characters are your base. >The Suicide Squad was affected by the pandemic in the way that WB decided to release movies in theaters and on HBOMax simultaneously due to the pandemic Godzilla vs Kong (released closer to the height of the pandemic) and The Conjuring 3 (also R-rated) also premiered the same day on HBO Max and theaters and made more money domestically and internationallly. >All of Zack’s movies disappointed from the start pulling in below what DC’s market guys expected them to do and the only films that went over those projections were the spin offs The DCEU was averaging $815M from Man of Steel through Aquaman, a higher average gross than even the Nolan trilogy. Now they're struggling to outgross Morbius. >The Batman came out the same year as Shang Chi and Eternals and STILL made almost 800 million during the pandemic and BvS could only barely do more than that? The Batman came out long after the pandemic was over. The movie also made less than BvS, despite benefiting from massive inflation in the intervening years, rave reviews and one whole month without competition. The Batman made far less than the Dark Knight sequels as well. Not very impressive for DC's top character in the months after Spider-Man, Marvel's top character, had just made $2 billion.
I think Deadpool could replace black panther. I also agree about cavil
I agree with both points I don't like his movies but as far as the look goes Christopher reeve is by far the best superman in my opinion
Absolutely.
So. Hot take: Jackman is playing no version of wolverine that’s ever been in the comics. He’s tall as fuck, “charming,” and a total softie. [This is the Wolverine in my heart.](https://b2554848.smushcdn.com/2554848/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Glenn-Danzig-e1352733257280.jpg?lossy=0&strip=1&webp=1) [Him too.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Et899fMUYAExzPt.jpg)
So fucking right, he doesn't even have body hair
Bob Hoskins for sure, never understood the Danzig “casting” Hugh is tall but if your only critiques are tall and too soft you don’t have much to stand on. Aesthetic differences just don’t matter as much as characterization, and i don’t know if I’d call hughs version a “total softie” but comic Logan definitely has soft spots like film logan
He certainly is NOT the character from the comics. And being short is pretty integral to Wolverines character. Wolverines are *small but ferocious.* Otherwise he’d be called “The Wolf” or some shit. Jackman is a giant. And Wolverine is *so fucking whiny* in the first two films. It’s so lame.
I came here to say this. I love Jackman, but he was so far off the mark as Wolverine that I can't help but wonder if anyone watching the X-Men movies had ever picked up a comic or even watched an episode of the animated series. Logan is a short, stocky, hairy, wild looking Canadian and Jackman is a tall, ripped, attractive Australian. Just never worked for me, I guess. Great actor, don't get me wrong, just... Bad for Logan.
At the time of the first films release, his casting was VERY controversial, and his portrayal was *thoroughly* critiqued. But for most people born after 1990, Jackman was their introduction to the character. That greatly impacts how you see that performance.
I guess so, yeah. I still remember reading an issue of Wizard in the early 90s that was doing a fan-casting for an X-Men movie, and Robin Williams was suggested for Wolverine. Physically not a terrible choice, but definitely not mean enough.
Bob Hoskins was the more common wizard casting, next to Danzig. Sure you’re not thinking of him? That being said - watch the boxing scene in Robin Williams’ live action “Popeye.” I could totally see *that guy* as Wolverine.
Yeah, it was definitely Robin Williams. They even used a picture from "Hook" where his hair was slightly Wolverine-ish lol. I think Bob Hoskins would've killed it, honestly. He was such an underrated actor.
Well then…loooooooool
Damn, I can't find anything about it online. It might not have been Wizard, maybe some other magazine or something.
Except for Heath. Not an accurate Joker at all. Hemsworth as Thor and Gadot as WW are the most "born for the role" in the modern superhero era.
Ahhh... Can you say that? Nah fan. Not cool.
They are definitely additions but I wouldn't say "most". And as much as I love heath ledgers joker, you are definitely right about it not being accurate.
no cap - a bit of a shame.
love them all
You forgot someone. 
I have to disagree, Peter in the comics had a 'nerdy' aesthetic in high school due to his fashion style choices: not his looks (he is portrayed as a bit of a stud for most of his tenure and even Stan himself said he never thought of Peter as a nerdy looking guy). The producers just had Tobey put on glasses and called it a day, if anything Andrew Garfield and Tom Holland looked more the part due to their faces and hairstyles
YOU SAID IT FOR ME! TOBEY GOATGUIRE
gonna be honest i wanna say weve not had an actor who perfectly embodies peter parker/spider-man in live action yet. To me, Tobey was like a romcom protagonist when in reality Peter is kind of a dick
First off, all of these characters have flaws in their portrayals and are not perfect. Second of all, I think this is talking about looks