DC Studios co-CEOs James Gunn and Peter Safran publicly unveiled their new plans for a DC cinematic shared universe (which they are referring to as the DCU) on Tuesday. Details are at times a bit confusing or unclear about certain characters and projects, but all signs seem to point to a full reboot of the DC superhero franchises in an attempt to build a fully integrated DC stable of films and series comparable in scope, quality, and popularity to Marvel Studio’s MCU. So what does a “Marvel approach” to DC superhero movies really mean?
“The Brave and the Bold” teaser image, art by Frank Quietly from the comic book series “Batman and … [+]
Catching up with and matching Marvel’s level of victory is a tall order, as Marvel is arguably the most successful movie studio in history, pound for pound. Gunn’s remarks at times took jabs at the MCU’s way of making movies and even the quality of some of Marvel’s approach (and for the record, I don’t agree with those remarks), indicating certain specific ways DC Studios will differentiate itself from Marvel.
But be that as it may, it’s clear Warner Bros. Discovery leadership wants and expects results that position the DCU to enjoy the same blockbuster success at a constant level both critically and financially as Marvel. You simply can’t talk about or envision a superhero movie studio and box office success without centering Marvel Studio’s approach, choices, and results in your analysis.
This doesn’t translate to “copy Marvel,” as some DC fans tend to oversimplify the issue when complaining about it. It doesn’t mean “…with jokes” and other common mischaracterizations.
In the longterm, when they talk about an MCU approach, what they want and need is for all of their DC content to tie together, so all of the HBO Max shows and broadcast TV shows and cinematic releases are part of a single shared DC world. Or at least, if/when some of it doesn’t cross over with the rest of the shared universe, they want that to be an exception rather than the rule, including The Batman sequels and certain spinoffs like The Penguin on HBO Max, as well as the Joker standalone series of films.
All of this is intended to turn the DCU into as popular and acclaimed a superhero shared world as Marvel Studio’s MCU. And as happened when the DCEU/Snyderverse was launched, the studio is in a hurry to catch up and will therefore jump ahead to pre-existing superheroes — especially Batman, who again will be somewhat of a veteran crimefighter who already “lost” his Dick Grayson sidekick. It also means a different tonal approach to the DCU, more in line with James Gunn’s The Suicide Squad and spinoff series Peacemaker, although Gunn says each project’s creative team will bring their own sensibilities to their films.
The thing is, it’s hard to insist that films within a shared world don’t have to follow rules to fit together properly. There’s room for tonal differences, of course, but if it’s truly a single shared universe with all of these heroes coexisting, then the films will need to portray that clearly and avoid any extreme differences.
The “MCU approach,” then, means a set of initial films with a elements that form a larger overarching story, culminating in a team-up event, followed by sequels to the origin films plus new origin films culminating in another bigger team-up, all of which can have differences yet must share certain similarities and include pieces of a larger narrative that will come to a head in the team-up films.
Now I have to say something many DC fans don’t like to hear: Yes, an “MCU approach” also includes certain tonal and key storytelling templates that have consistently worked as ideal to include in the genre. But the fact is, Marvel’s approach in those regards isn’t something they invented. No, it goes all the way back to the very first film that launched superhero movies as a genre — 1978’s Superman, which was filmed simultaneously with its sequel Superman II.
The template for telling a superhero story like a serious cinematic epic, using a cast of esteemed performers in supporting roles to provide gravitas to the production, and appealing to a large mainstream global audience who love mythic storytelling that includes relevant social points and representation alongside a sense of humor and ambitious, large-scale action sequences and world-building (the latter has oddly become a dirty word in certain corners, but I don’t care, it’s important and matters).
The Christopher Reeve-starring Superman established this template so perfectly, it’s been tweaked but otherwise is still applied largely unchanged to this day, with regard to its most important aspects. Films like Batman Begins, Iron Man, Wonder Woman, Thor, Captain America, and even Man of Steel and Aquaman reflect the template and approach introduced in Richard Donner’s 1978 classic. The MCU approach, then, is just a modern continuation of what DC’s Superman did.
So we could fairly say that a DCEU using the MCU approach would be honoring something created by DC in the first place, if you think about it. And that DCEU, applying the films and approaches reflecting that template and those lessons, might look something like this…
(The following approach presumes a tweaking of the tones to be less deconstructive in the first round of films and first big team-ups, so consider the context and comparable films based on the actors when thinking about all of it.)
Imagine if in the mid-to-late 2000s Batman Begins (starring Christian Bale), Wonder Woman (starring Morena Baccarin perhaps?), The Dark Knight, Man of Steel (with Brandon Routh, yes?), and Aquaman (maybe with The Rock, or just a younger Jason Momoa?) had all come out from 2005 through 2009, followed in 2011 by a version of Batman v Superman with Metallo as the Luthor-created villain (made from Zod’s Kryptonian armor and the Kryptonite) and without Doomsday appearing (meaning Superman survives the film and Batman fights him but then helps him defeat Metallo).
That would have been followed by WW1984, The Batman (Reeves’ The Batman tweaked to be a continuation of the Nolan Batman), and Man of Steel 2: Doomsday (which would have Luthor’s Doomsday scheme omitted from Batman v Superman) from 2012 to 2013 . So in 2014 comes Zack Snyder’s Justice League, introducing Flash and Cyborg, but basically split in the middle (at the point Steppenwolf discovers the Anti-Life equation on Earth) into a JL Part 1 and JL Part 2 and released in the same year during summer and Christmas.
That’s a hypothetical “what if?” 10-year plan with 11 films, including two Justice League movies and a “Trinity” Superman-Wonder Woman-Batman team-up film. I firmly believe that taking advantage of the popularity of the Batman solo films’ approach, building on that with separate standalone solo movies at first, and then crossing over into the even more popular Batman franchise would have — along with the adjustments in tone and casting — provided the studio with a big cinematic DC world with solid success comparable to Marvel.
After that, this imaginary DCEU could do more sequels for the main heroes and introduce more characters building toward another Justice League movie. Eventually, they could have released a Flash movie titled Flashpoint to shake up the continuity a bit and leading to a huge event film like Justice League: Crisis On Infinite Earths.
Now imagine if the Arrowverse had been launched to tie into the cinematic DCEU, so the CW series Arrow, The Flash, and Supergirl for example were extensions of the movies and set up those heroes within the larger cinematic world. Those characters would’ve crossed over into DCEU film franchises as well, after their first few seasons.
In fact, most of the rest of the Arrowverse, DC Unlimited, and TV or streaming shows about DC’s superheroes could’ve been tweaked to fit together as a significant small-screen expansion of the DCEU, allowing amazing crossover potential for DC TV and films. DC would’ve been far ahead of Marvel’s development of their own larger array of TV and streaming series supporting and spinning off from their cinematic universe.
Of course, it’s too late to do this now, and it’s all “what if?” hindsight. Except we can directly apply these examples and lessons to today and tomorrow, to see what a hypothetical DCEU would need to do to match what the MCU has accomplished.
It’s easy to use existing DCEU examples and past films to construct what it might have looked like for the current DCEU if it had tried to more closely apply certain MCU approaches and lessons — a template actually started with the DC movie Superman in 1978. Which, in turn, can help us imagine how a DCU of the future might apply those same approaches and lessons, if those are indeed the approaches and lessons they choose to take as relevant and applicable in their current situation.
Remember, we are assuming WBD leadership wants to do something akin to Marvel for DC properties, so whether you agree or not with the premise, that’s the starting point for this discussion. It doesn’t matter whether you prefer the DCEU as-is, the examples are to demonstrate how much of the existing DCEU could’ve actually been a thoroughly successful popular start to a superhero universe as successful as Marvel’s, with an overt application of what most people think of as the “Marvel approach.”
And revisiting the past for examples is additionally relevant right now, because as I mentioned earlier, in a way we are right back in a few familiar places…
There’s a new plan to reboot Superman and use that film to quickly build a large shared world of superheroes, including a veteran Batman who already lost Dick Grayson as a sidekick, an anti-hero team breaking the law but doing it for a supposedly greater good, and a tough superhuman godlike woman superhero similar to Superman but reflecting different tone and themes. Meanwhile, there is a separate pre-existing grounded, popular, acclaimed Batman solo franchise that ends as a trilogy instead of continuing and possibly tying into the shared cinematic universe. Now, am I describing the start of the DCEU, or the current situation leading to the DCU?
I know there are really many significant differences between the two, but it’s also true that in some ways the situations are quite similar, and some of the choices facing the studio are likewise similar enough to raise old questions again. And this relates to the question of how to get the DCU to a point rivaling the success of the MCU, because it’s about foundational aspects that either enhance or detract from the ability of audiences to buy into the new world, and how early decisions and films are crucial to success.
I am not advocating for taking away Matt Reeves’ Batman franchise. I’m a huge advocate for basically just getting out of Reeves’ way and letting him do whatever he wants with it for as long as he wants, because I think he has the right sensibilities and ideas to build the longterm Batman franchise we’ve always wanted — and which many of us hoped we were getting with Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy. But I have to talk honestly about how things look when standing back and considering the comparisons.
The fact is, this really is almost like a do-over for WBD and DC Studios. There’s a chance to approach Reeves and ask if he’d be willing to continue having autonomy for his trilogy and lots of spinoff shows, but to please just not do anything overtly stating Batman is the only superhero in his world. Then, after the trilogy and spinoffs are all released, ask him about continuing that Batman franchise and letting the solo films do their own thing without outright contradicting the rest of the DCU, but allow the other DCU films to mention Robert Pattinson’s Batman and those film events sometimes, and allow Pattinson’s Batman to appear in crossover movies with other superheroes.
Maybe I’m way off base and Reeves never wanted to do more than a trilogy, or maybe Gunn and Safran aren’t planning to shut down Reeves’ Batman series after the trilogy, and maybe Reeves has no interest in seeing his version of Batman used by other filmmakers within a shared DCU. But I think it’s at least worth talking about the fact no actual decision would even have to be made for several more years, and postponing introducing another different Batman would be worth it since there’d still be the Reeves films coming out every few years and there’s no plan for Batman to immediately cross over into the other Chapter 1 films anyway.
I say all of that to make the point it’s similar to the situation with Nolan’s Batman, except in that case Nolan clearly opposed the further use of his Batman, and Christian Bale said he would only continue in the role if Nolan was involved or blessed it. At the time, I felt it was the right choice to agree to those terms and just reboot Batman entirely for the DCEU. And I love Ben Affleck’s Batman in the DCEU.
That said, in hindsight it’s hard not to see how reviving Nolan’s Batman — even if it meant recasting the part, with Affleck or someone like Colin Farrell — and just leaning into the idea his Batman movies are the backstory for the DCEU Batman would’ve provided the additional foundation and audience buy-in for the DCEU. It’s a Batman they’ve grown to know, one they understand and accept in his own world, so the transition would’ve been far easier to make with that familiarity and popularity.
It’s important to talk about all of this, especially because of the feeling we’ve been here before. So I can’t help but wonder if there was an opportunity for all of this to play out like that whole hypothetical situation we missed out on before. Regardless, they aren’t doing it, and perhaps that will wind up being for the best. But I think it’s worth asking the questions and wondering how Reeves would respond to this hypothetical scenario.
Gunn said clearly that the new DCU’s Batman will not be either Pattinson or Affleck (and who knows, maybe it won’t be Bruce Wayne under the cowl but Dick Grayson instead!), so it doesn’t matter at this point, aside from for analysis purposes and wondering how things might turn out and where any potential new course-corrections might come into play.
The studio will therefore attempt to replicate Marvel’s success level while vaguely replicating some of the previous DCEU choices (from the way it started out, to certain later attempts to “course correct” while retaining certain elements of the past). They seek to achieve the Marvel-level success by making tonal shifts, granting more creative control for filmmakers, developing a wider array of lesser-known heroes for films and TV shows, and tying every TV and film projects into the same shared world (with only limited exceptions) of crowd-pleasing big-scale superhero storytelling, while postponing certain other decisions about prior DCEU cast and characters.
I have tremendous faith in and respect for James Gunn’s filmmaking and for his instincts and decision-making, for the most part. So while I definitely am worried about the situation regarding The Batman and have a few other concerns about some of the underlying assumptions and choices in developing parts of the new DCU plan, I also freely admit that taken on their own merits and trying to step back and weigh each objectively, the projects sound promising and I’d love to see them.
On the flip side of that, while I like how most of the individual projects sound (although can’t say I’m pleased with the idea of turning Green Lantern into an Earth-based buddy cop movie instead of the DC equivalent of Star Wars), we’ve already seen that sometimes it isn’t enough to have brilliantly realized, enormously entertaining DC movies that feel very much like applying the approaches Gunn talked about for the new DCU — his own The Suicide Squad is a perfect example of this. It has to be built upon a solid enough foundation and with enough cultivation to win audience buy-in. Taking for granted the awareness of these heroes and increased audience appetite for them will be repeating mistakes that kept undermining the DCEU.
Which is where my concerns about some of the new DCU choices arise, not only because of my feelings about some of the films and filmmakers, but also how it affects the future success of the DCU and the risks of failure this time. I dare say, I imagine we’d see WBD just selling off DC Studios to another studio if this plan falls short, setting DC back another decade or more and requiring yet another search for leadership with another 10-year plan for success.
What makes it especially frustrating is, I don’t think any of this should be anywhere near as hard as it’s been. We know what successful DC movies look like, we know what sustainable shared cinematic universes look like, we know what audiences love best and what they are less enthusiastic about, and we know there are over 80 years of comics filled with awesome, acclaimed source material to draw inspiration from. Marvel made it work with second- and third-tier characters as their foundation, relying on the approach and lessons mostly learned 45 years ago with Donner’s Superman.
Hopefully, despite all of the concerns I have and aspects of the new DCU plan that I personally dislike or feel is a repeat of past mistakes, and despite the fact I feel certain people involved in the DCEU were treated shabbily by successive studio regimes and are now being unceremoniously dropped or kicked out of the executive tier, I still do want DC to succeed and I want Gunn and Safran to succeed.
I also need to say how disappointed I am that Patty Jenkins’ story for a third Wonder Woman movie was rejected and that seems to have played out, and how upset I am at the studio over the fact it happened in a way that frustrated Jenkins and didn’t reflect the respect and esteem she deserves.
I realize at some point projects have to be stopped if a new rebooted world is to be built. But if “the door is open” and with a third Aquaman supposedly still planned, it’s hard to imagine how Jenkins’ treatment could’ve so contradicted future plans as to make it unusable. And I think since so much of this was all being worked out behind the scenes for a while before it was known publicly, I don’t believe there’s any excuse for not letting Jenkins know well in advance when she began working on her treatment for Wonder Woman 3.
Which increases my suspicion that the real issue is simply that this will all eventually become a total reboot after all, or any return of those characters is after a presumed erasure of their past films’ events. It also makes me wonder more about the precise nature of that third Aquaman movie, and Momoa’s recent behavior strongly suggesting he’s playing another character in the new DCU. But that’s a discussion for a different article, which I’ll have for you soon enough.
This is all my own analysis, beliefs, interpretations, expectations, theories, and pure guesswork. I hope I’m wrong about some of it, I hope I’m right about other of it, and most of all I hope and wish that it all transpires in the best way possible for everyone involved and for the DC properties. Whatever opinions I personally have about how best to ensure that happens, I freely admit I could be way off base, or a little off base, but we might not find out for sure for quite a while when it comes to some of these things. All we can do is wait…
Be sure to check back soon, dear readers, for more updates and analysis about the DCU’s future, the DCEU’s final four movies hitting theaters this year, Matt Reeves’ Batman sequel and spinoffs, plus lots more film and box office news.
Stay connected with us on social media platform for instant update click here to join our Twitter, & Facebook
We are now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@TechiUpdate) and stay updated with the latest Technology headlines.
For all the latest Art-Culture News Click Here
