I don't think DC can become big without fixing this issue

The international issue has completely abandoned DC and it's not gaining it's getting worse

Superman hand a split of 45% international

Supergirl had an international split of 40% that fine

But then lanterns had a split of 78% domestic and the res t international

And Clayface is right now tracking for a 80% split

This tells me the rest of the world just don't like DC that isn't batman they are abandoning the DCU at a record pace

Why is that the case

Personally I don't believe MOT is gonna be successful but I'm just negative

Just to ass the marvel witch is what people compare to Supergirl has a 57% international audience split

The main flaw of both is how they downplay one to make the other one shine when both are equally important to Superman's identity, he is Kal El the refugee from a destroyed world and a farm boy from Smallville

He carries both the legacy of the Els and the teachings of the Kents and the prospect of putting the two in opposition to make one of them look good is stupid imo

Like My Adventures with Superman also did the nature vs nurture thing without making Clark's heritage and bloodline that of chauvanistic facist dicks, undermining the fact that he is literally an immigrant and the damn near the last survivor of an actual genocide. While still making him struggle with the fact that Krypton's culture as a whole was that of chauvanistic, militaristic facist dicks

And I don't think I need to talk about Johnathan Kent's character assassination in Man of Steel, shit was HOT ASS

But yeah, Gunn's Superman over Snyder's any day of the week, any week of the month, any month of the year

Edit: idk man, I just really liked the nuance of Krypton the Els and who they were rather than the black or white portrayal in either of these

Like the title says, if DCU Batman looked exactly like this I'd be the happiest man alive, no tweaks necessary. Well maybe you could remove the cock protection but even that is something I wouldn't mind if it made over to the movies. I mean it makes sense that Batman would want to protect that are and it feels like a modern take on the trunks

its beyond negligence that since 1997 (Batman & Robin) we’ve had that one portrayal of Dick Grayson on the big screen and absolutely nothing since then which is crazywork. The fact another legacy character with the spider-man mantle (Miles Morales) is on its 3rd film wrapping up a trilogy is the biggest indicator of how far the gap is between marvel and DC when it comes to films. Like is he blacklisted or something from writers rooms?

We live in a world where people binge entire seasons of a TV show in one go so the runtime just doesn't bother me at all, especially with the chapter breaks. But, had the movie been released properly in cinemas, without all the behind the scenes nonsense, what do you think would have been cut to get it closer to three hours?

The first ten minutes have some lovely shots establishing characters and the time (ie Superman's death) but it has no dialogue and drags out a bit. I think that, the extended sequence of the Amazons contacting Diana, and the village women singing would be the first obvious cuts.

I think the Knightmare epilogue would also be cut since it wasn't even in the original version. Maybe some of Arthur's stuff since he had the next upcoming film? It's hard because I like all the little character moments the extra runtime gives.

The main bits I wouldn't want to touch would be the final battle (I just really like it), the flashback with Darkseid, the introductory scenes for Victor and Barry (particularly Victor saving the single mother), and the scenes with a resurrected Clark on the farm.

What bits do you think would be cut or trimmed and what impact would that have on the story or characters?

I never like Snyder story much, he makes Batman kills, but James Gunn is ruined DC lore more than Snyder. Superman parent is Evil? Hal Jordan become ring addicted greedy asshole Smeagol?, and they killled him like a dog. Whats next Wally west gonna steal Barry Speed force and then killed him?

There were so many potential characters we could continue having, like Deathstroke, etc. Gunn apparently told him to "let it go", while inviting his friends into the DCU canon. I didn't like this.

Source:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DedeVxLAQyE/?srtk=eDN1aGM4Y3c4Zm4x

I quite like Man of Steel. It's not my favourite Superman film, but I think it gets a lot right in how it presents the mythology of Superman, especially Krypton and the alien aspect.

However, I do think that there was so much focus on Krypton at the start and while I really like the Krypton scenes, I feel like they could have been trimmed to allow time for a scene where Jonathan and Martha find Clark's ship.

I don't mind Jonathan's take on being fearful of the danger of Clark's powers or the potential reaction to him being revealed to the world, but I think showing young Jonathan and Martha coming face to face with the realisation that this infant is from another world would have gone a long way in making the audience accept his position more. Allowing the audience to view Kal El's arrival through the human lens would have aided this.

It also would have served as a nice segue from the hugely effects laden opening of the film to the grounded Earth look and feel as I think the smash cut to the fishing trawler is a bit jarring.

That and I just love the mythology of the scene in the comics.

Looks so cool. They definitely nailed the costume in ZSJL.

Spoilers for Lanterns

I don't think Noah being a Manhunter was unexpected, nor do I think it's inherently a bad idea. I do, however, think the way they handled it wasn't particularly well thought out.

For one thing, if it's apparently so easy to create a Manhunter, why did Zoe only create one? We're never given a reason why Kerry would have been particularly suitable as an incubator, for lack of a better word, to make new Manhunters. And even if there was something special about Kerry that made her suitable, even using only Kerry Zoe wood have had the time to create more than one.

Did Zoe create Noah for one specific purpose? Maybe, but we're never told that. Was his creation an accident that Zoe herself doesn't fully understand and can't reproduce? Again, that's possible, but the show doesn't frame it that way. Based on how it's presented, creating new Manhunters seems relatively easy and something Zoe could potentially have done multiple times.

If her goal was simply to prevent the extinction of the Manhunters in case she died, it would have made sense to create more than one. And that's the problem. One of the show's central premises is that the Manhunters were these incredibly dangerous beings that wiped out entire civilizations, that Zoe is the last surviving member of, and that she herself has already exterminated an entire planet's population. The implication is that she represents an existential threat that has to be eliminated. You can't just throw in at the end, "Oh, by the way, apparently it's really easy to create new Manhunters," without explaining that.

I also don't think Noah's Manhunter programming driving him to kill the Guardians makes much sense. We don't know a lot about the Manhunters or their programming, but we do know that the Guardians created them. Why, then, would the programming the Guardians themselves developed drive a Manhunter to kill them?

It's one thing for the Manhunters to go overboard in an Ultron-esque way, interpreting their mission to bring peace and order so that they ultimately decide the best way to achieve it is to wipe out all life in the universe. That would be consistent with the idea of artificially created beings taking its original purpose to a horrifying extreme. But killing the Guardians doesn't really fit that same logic.

Of course, Noah has an understandable emotional reason to want them dead. He blames them for his grandmother's death, and from a human perspective, that makes perfect sense. But that's precisely the distinction, emotional revenge is one thing, and being driven by Manhunter programming is another. The Manhunters we've been told about don't kill out of personal resentment. They infiltrate civilizations, manipulate them, and ultimately engineer their extinction. It's what (they believe) they were created to do. We've never been given a reason to believe that their programming involves seeking revenge against specific individuals or groups. So why would Noah's programming specifically drive him to target the Guardians? It's not impossible, but the show doesn't establish that connection well enough to make it convincing.

And then there's the way Noah's instability is handled, which I think is one of the most frustrating aspects of the writing.

Noah effectively becomes Schrödinger's Noah. He's simultaneously so trustworthy that John is right to let him go free, but also so volatile and unstable that Kerry couldn't possibly be sent to prison because doing so might cause Noah to succumb to his Manhunter programming and become a genocidal monster.

And I don't think those two portrayals are particularly compatible.

If Noah really is so unstable that the moment he encounters adversity, he might decide to wipe out humanity, then he shouldn't remain free at all. Why must everyone around him be protected from the consequences of their own actions because of the possibility that Noah might react badly?

Carrie admits that she committed murder. She acknowledges that she deserves to go to prison for it. Yet apparently, holding her accountable for that crime is unacceptable because there's a chance Noah might respond by ending humanity.

But that's not what trusting Noah to control his worst impulses and live a normal human life looks like. A normal human life involves experiencing adversity, dealing with disappointment, and accepting that other people will sometimes face consequences for their actions. If your mother commits murder, she might go to prison. That's a perfectly ordinary reality that Noah would have to learn to live with.

Obviously, if Noah genuinely poses an existential threat, that threat has to be taken seriously. But the show can't have it both ways. It can't ask us to trust Noah as a fundamentally good person who deserves the opportunity to live freely while simultaneously treating him as someone who might become a genocidal monster at any moment.

The problem isn't necessarily that Noah has these conflicting tendencies. A character struggling between his humanity and his programming could be genuinely compelling. The problem is that his level of trustworthiness and instability seems to change depending on what the writers need him to do in a particular scene.

When they want John's decision to release him to seem justified, Noah is trustworthy enough to control himself. When they want to justify protecting Carrie from the consequences of her actions, he's unstable enough that prosecuting her might end humanity. And when they want to establish a way for John to get a Lanterns without the Guardians knowledge, his programming becomes a convenient explanation for behavior that hasn't otherwise been established as characteristic of a Manhunter.

Ultimately, I don't object to Noah being a Manhunter. The concept itself has plenty of potential. The execution, however, leaves too many fundamental questions unanswered, and the result is that Noah's character seems to operate according to whatever rules are most convenient for the writers at any given moment.

What was promised in 2023 announcement:

A. Damian Wayne as Robin

B. An older Batman since he’s a father to 10-year old Damian, and has probably mentored three Robins already: Dick, Jason and Tim.

C. Grant Morrison’ Brave and the Bold run would be the blueprint

D. Andy Muschietti (‘The Flash’) will be directing, and later Christina Hudson (‘Batgirl’, ‘Birds of Prey’, ‘The Flash’) was announced as the writer.

Possible creative changes that could have happened:

A. Younger Batman, contemporary of David Corenswet’s Superman in age.

B. Dick Grayson as Robin, or no Robin at all in the first DCU Batman movie.

C. Change in tone to dark, gritty and gothic: in line with how the DCU Gotham is being presented in ‘Clayface’.

D. Change of director and/or writer

E. Robert Pattinson’s Batman as the DCU Batman post-The Batman: Part II

What do you guys think could be the creative changes Gunn is suggesting? The fact that he replied at all means it is pretty significant. Would love to know the thoughts of y’all!

Which team would be strongest and win based on feats. All characters are at their peak and fighting without holding back. All base versions.

The teams is just based similar personalitys not similar based on same era to make it unqiue and less boring.

Team 1: Tobey Magurie Spider-Man, Robert Pattinson Batman and Christopher Reeves Superman. Quiet Team

Team 2: Andrew Garfield Spider-Man, Christian Bale Batman and Brandon Routh Superman. Cool Team

Team 3: Tom Holland Spider-Man, Micheal Keaton Batman and David Corenswet Superman. Identifying Team

Team 4: Nicholas Hammond Spider-Man, Ben Affleck Batman and Henry Cavill Superman. Angry Team

BTAS/New adventures: A very sympathetic man really talented who made a tough choice in a desperate place to get his life back choose to get involved with the mob yes but didn't want things to go as far and was a drug addict allegory most of his evil is too restore his body doesn't want to hurt others even Batman as much or steal money even has a relationships like with the scientist trying to cure him or his best friend. Does some messed up stuff like with the Tim Drake episode but nothing anybody can't come back from he just needs a good chance a springboard. James Gunn spoke on this being why he loves villains.

Batman 2004: Is pretty ugly alone and unaccomplished mistakes wanting to make it big in acting to feel better about himself being reminded even at a restaurant what a loser he is. however associates almost if not any criticism of his terrible acting as bullying his look saying what he probably thinks of himself takes a more toxic version of the serum without even thinking about what it did Ethan's life because he can't understand what he has or suffering beyond his own. Mostly a joke villain who is threating because he is OP.

Batfamily New 52 Clayface: Read a few comics with him in there even now like him in Tom King City of Bane or Night of the Monster Men Part 6(if I recall right). Some of my favorite part is him fighting a monster version of himself in training and grieving over it but choosing to confront his mistakes even victims like in Victims of the Batman a group of villains who were collateral damage in villains seeking revenge on Batman even since Joker was a red hood or Clayface during Batman incorporated Tim Drake's death and Spoiler leaving. Clayface takes accountability for what happened to her and helps her heal even in the comic like others did for him while the leader is stuck in jail still refuses to see he became the thing he hates another villain hurting civilians to get back at Batman because he refuses to see himself as anything but a victim and like most of the villains mainly Joker he hates has nothing but his obsession with Batman left. Would do an amazing job showing how far he came without taking much time.

One Bad Day Clayface: Best sequel to the Killing Joke and of the one bad day stories. A villain POV story. Please read it I heard this movie being compared to Obsession could be a charming protagonist at first we want to see get better but almost always doubles down at his mistakes obsessed with mattering to mean anything. His self loathing enlightened writer/actor attitude and how little he plans ahead or considers how things effect him in the long term just because of his obsession with his dream of finishing his story no matter who gets hurt even his friends and at the end is left with nothing but his regrets and making Batman scary again.

Interview