Why the DCEU Failed? 

You missed the fact that Superman has been around for almost 85 years, not 75 as stated in your video.

@stuunitt2947 good spot, you are quite right.

Very good point.

Guardians of the Galaxy, Eternals, Moon Knight, Ant-Man, Ms. Marvel, Black Panther, and Shang-Chi are great examples of the MCU introducing less known characters to the nonMarvel comics fans and got the MCU and causal fans to enjoy the characters and are excited to see them again in the MCU

But they have James Gunn now who is the King at introducing lesser known characters into the main stream

Great point.

Diana got her film before JL...and her film was the only one regularly talked about in good standing for the Snyderverse before Aquaman & The Captain came about.

now we have a divided fanbase where half don't even want a DC universe, they just want the snyderverse. imo the best dc movies have been the lesser known characters, with suicide squad (gunn), shazam 1, and now blue beetle. im cool with darker movies, but I am not a fan of snyders approach. he's great with visuals and tone, but is really bad at getting me to care about the characters whatsoever.

this comment is so ignorant, Man of Steel is THE SUPERMAN movie

@@EduFabolous you're completely wrong and I'll prove it. For starters, Superman is supposed to be a beacon of light, something for people to look at in amazement, wonder and also joy, to be inspired by and admire, also inspiring people to do what's right and good, this is the most basic thing about Superman and we see none of that in that movie. A shadow of the Superman as we all know him to be only comes out because Zod forces him to show up and even then we mostly see him bringing destruction everywhere and then death by killing Zod, which was a totally pointless thing to do because it didn't have the weight that it should have because it wasn't well stablished enough that Superman doesn't kill, but that was done only to make him more "adult" and gritty, because WB thought people wanted a Superman more like Nolan's Batman movies, which was an insanely dumb thing to assume or to think that it was the way to go with Superman, because the core of the character is the exact opposite of that. So WB made MoS the way they did and it failed and then came Marvel bringing the positivity and levity that a Superman movie needed and they became a huge phenomenon in movie history by doing so.... and WB spent the rest of the decade up to now on damage controle mode running after Marvel's success and failing for the most part with a few successes here and there but never quite getting where they wanted to be, and we also NEVER saw a second Superman solo movie with Henry Cavill, which is a shame bc he deserved much, much better. It was an absolute tragedy and a trainweck what happend and it all started with the mistaken course they took with MoS and it went all downhill from there.

@@rockbarcellos saying what he is supposed to be is making your own canon, judge MoS as FILM, and people talk about symbolism of hope, you want quick and easy hope from MCU, where you are told everything instead of being shown. Superman is very hopeful in MoS and BvS, what kind of BS is this where everyone ignores what they are seeing, he chooses humanity over kypton, humans reject him and he still is there, you want to say “it’s too dark”, that just a moronic and stupid excuse. By itself the film on a technical level beats any MCU movie, answear the question, which MCU movie have better of the following compared to MoS - score: no MCU film even comes half as close to this - cinematography: name one MCU movie with something that resembles cinematography much less it being the whole film - Action: Just watch the small ville fight in MoS and there is no comparison. You talk about the issue being WB wanting Dark and Gritty but that’s the issue, they did not commit to serious film making and began cutting corners ala MCU, the only thing they managed to do equal was copy their atrocious CGI and writing for Children

@@EduFabolous no, the character is more than 70 years old, he already have a pretty well stablished canon which he's known for by most people, or at least his most basic characteristics which I've mentioned in my previous comment are very well known. That's just what the character is, the same way Batman or Spiderman are what they are and people know and love them for it. Even if I were to judge the film on it's own it still fails to construct something that's engaging or at least entertaining, it is very pretentious in it's seriousness because it's only surface level seriousness, it's just aesthetics and it isn't really presenting anything truly interesting to think about, even though it pretends that it is. The overall tone of the movie is dark and serious and not "hopeful" at all, in fact it's the exact opposite bc in that story we see Kal being broken by the decision to kill Zod, but again, there was just no build up for making us care about that whatsoever so it's purely surface level depth. The only "hope" within that movie is the continuous promise that maybe at some point we'll finally see the Superman that most people know and love and that it is the core meaning of the character that was built over 70 years of stories across medias, as the symbol of light and good that I've mentioned before, but, as I also said before, that's never shown in that movie, and that's a HUGE flaw bc a Superman movie absolutely needs that. And don't get me wrong, I've mentioned Marvel's success but that doesn't mean I'm saying that the Marvel movies are the best thing ever, bc I don't think that to be the case at all, what I did say though is that WB rejecting a lighter more positive approach for their Superman movie thinking that it couldn't work and that the audience wouldn't go for it was CLEARLY a mistake on WB's part since Marvel's astounding success proved them wrong, to the point that WB tried to course correct midway through but then it was already pointless bc the damage was already taken and they also failed to implement that lighter tone with a minimum amount of quality or coherence. Marvel for all it's flaws and very cheap entertainment type of movies, at the very least was consistent and coherent and made some legitimate entertaining fun movies, at least an enough number of them that made people engaged and coming back to see what would come next. MoS on the other hand failed at the most basic level presenting a version of Superman that made no sense at all due to WB's mistaken course direction of stripping the character of his most basic elements that made him a success in the first place. The result was the failure that MoS was to win people's hearts and preference in the way Marvel and the Avengers manage to do, and that's a real tragedy, bc Justice League Unlimited is the living proof that Superman and the DC heroes universe could have been f*****g EPIC and even easily beat Marvel's success.... if done correctly...... which WB absolutely failed to do, unfortunately.

Agreed with what you have said. It does make the task of storytelling a lot harder, though. Sometimes, it is best to keep it simple.

Exactly like look at guardians each guardians movie is very much focused on a particular guardian which lends too better story telling.

The first movie was a origin for the team itself but it was really a origin for gamora and peter, the second movie focused on peter, infinity war focused the guardians storyline on gamora, the third one is rockets story

They are able too focus on individual characters while also not forgetting the rest.

I did enjoy his version of justice league. It was a lot better than the original release.

@@The_Movie_Bandit Yep me too man. Its my most favourite DCEU movie followed very closely by The Suicide Squad which is followed very closely by Man Of Steel

I still dont think he introduced too much. The cameos were minimal and focus was on Lex pulling strings throughout the film til the inevitable faceoff.

@@xxreyoxx The thing is that Age Of Ultron and Batman v Superman quite a bit too much on foreshadowing the future events. But ZSJL did it better than both of them

Still is a bad movie.

Thanks for the feedback, I will take it on board.

That is a good point

Yeah instead of execs getting involved they should have just let the man get on with it. After man of Steel it very much felt like design by committee which would never work

@@The_Movie_Bandit I kinda feel scared for the dcu and Superman legacy sounds like the bvs situation all over again

@Dabisingh--wx4jz see I'm just going into it with an open mind. I thought Robert Patterson batman would be awful but really enjoyed it.

I just think they should've stuck with Snyder. Look how it was going in the past compared to the complete mistakes that the whole WB/ DCU are making. I'm simply waiting for Snyder to end his projects at Netflix, because by that time the DCU will be bankrupt. Killing off a baby in Aquaman the Lost Kingdom. If movies continue that direction, the new DCU will be gone before Snyder returns to finish his films. It is confirmed that he will. He said once WB doesn't own DC anymore, he will continue it.

The Zod plot doesn't make sense. He had all this terraforming equipment and instead of making Mars Krypton he decided to try and kill everyone on earth. That is what I mean by he is just a villain comment. Maybe I should have expanded on it more. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed MoS, I just thought some of it could have been better.

@@The_Movie_Bandit Zod was operating on limited resources. Jor-El’s Phantom Drive technology takes energy and didn’t solve Krypton’s resources crisis. If it did, they would have stopped mining Krypton’s core. With limited resources and power, that Zod had a limited number of jumps with the Black Zero. For all we know, Zod had only one shot at using the World Engine before exhausting the Phantom Drive. The World Engine only terraforms mass and atmosphere. Why assume World Engines can magically change anything about a planet? By proposing Mars, there’s already the assumption a World Engine can’t turn a gas giant solid, it can create water from nothing. It can’t directly modify a planet’s distance from its star, its orbit or precession in relation to temperature and it can’t give a plant a magnetosphere. Without a strong magnetosphere, any atmosphere created would be simply blown away by solar winds. Mars has a frozen core incapable of generating a magnetosphere. The film established can’t fix planetary cores otherwise the Kryptonians would have used World Engines to fix Krypton’s core. There were literally no other candidates. Zod tells Clark when he’s brought onboard the Black Zero that they spent 33 years wandering as interstellar nomads. Why hasn’t Zod already terraformed a planet? Sure an entire planet shaped to Kryptonian needs and comfort is far better staging point than a retrofitted prison ship. Earth was the first viable candidate they found. Bottom line: Mars was not a viable candidate for permanent terraforming.

No disrespect felt at all. I disagree, it isn't nitpicking, it is asking for a film to have logical reasons behind a character motivation. The video you link is taking leaps to explain something that isn't explained in the film imo.

@@The_Movie_Bandit Strongly disagree with that one bro. It’s clearly explained in the clips from the movie.

Well, I'm happy to agree to disagree on that one. Thanks for the conversation. It was interesting.

No disrespect felt at all. I really like to hear other opinions. I agree with you that man of Steel was the best one. I actually enjoyed it. However, I felt the character of Clark wasn't explored enough. More could have been done. I would have definitely gone to see man of Steel 2 if it was released though.

Man of Steel feel more a New52 Supergirl movie, too alien and distant.

​@@The_Movie_Bandit Man of steel was not a bad movie not a good movie either. It was a mediocre movie with incredible scenes and sequences. But they could have continue the darker universe Zack snyder had build. They could have given a distinct movie experience rather than imitating marvel. Now DC is doing what marvel has done years ago

I'm sorry, but making a dark and brooding Superman is like making a light and cheerful Schindler's List. It's like if you switched the tones (and color palettes) of Barbie and Oppenheimer. It just doesn't work, no matter how technically skilled Zack Snyder is at composing a shot.

superman was the first actually he was created in 1938 Batman in 1939

Superman, BVS, Wonder Woman, League. Don't forget Diana got her film before the league...and audiences were expecting Aquaman before the league as well, but league was so trash in 2017 that only Wonder Woman was actually talked about in high standing that year.

😂 LOL 😂

Fr

But he *totally* loves these characters

@@daustin8888 he stated in interview he never got into mainstream comics that he loves dark graphic novels he liked Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns which is completely different version of DC.

Not really DC is currently destroying marvel in comics

I agree with you.

BvS tone was set by Snyder. The dark tone was not a success. It was also raised numerous times in MoS. WB certainly didn't help constantly changing it after the initial failure of the dark tone snyder wanted to go with. But some of the blame certainly sits with Snyder on that one. The dark tone works with Batman, but not so much with superman.

​@@The_Movie_Bandit If anything they should have payed attention to the tone of each hero when making the movies. Superman- light Batman- dark Wonder Woman & Aquaman- half of each *they got these two right. The Captain- Light* also got right. Birds- yes dark works, but wrong for using Harley when a team of a Batgirl or three, Huntress and Black Canary is all you need.

Dats cope