I've always hated Guy Gardner. I'd much rather see John Stewart.

Hell, Kyle Raynor would’ve been a better choice. Guess he’s too recent in the timeline. Stewart has already been cast in the Green Lantern series.

Supposedly, the hero choice is to show contrast between them vs Superman. I'm still in wait and see, but it's nice to see Superman at least appearing to be hopeful. Either way, I won't be seeing this opening weekend.

quote:

Originally posted by DanH:

You mean how they're actually being comic accurate and it hurts your fee-fees in a teaser trailer that's actually a teaser that doesn't spoil any of the plot?

Fee-fees? Nah, that’s just a juvenile response because someone doesn’t care too much for what you do. So by that rationale, comic books are the Holy Bible? Just because it’s in some comic book from 70 years ago means it should be in some film in 2025? What’s directors should be doing instead, is making good film. This director’s previous work tells the tale. Will be just another stinker SuperHo film.

What’s really funny is consumers getting all jacked up on yet another men in tights film. Did you see the new men in tights trailer!! Then someone watches it and says ‘meh’ then you berate them. LMAO. You want to see men in tights so bad you should go to your local Pride parade.

The Critical Drinker weighs in....

Superhero movies are completely played out.

I’m shocked that they’ve gone as long as they have been but it’s my understanding they are still big in China, where it’s one of the few things that government is OK with letting their people see because it’s all fantasy.

Bad/redundant superhero movies are played out.

There's still room for good/different ones. The issue is that most of the studios seem to have stopped trying. (And not just with superhero movies...)


For example, how many Batman movies have there been since the 1990s? A bunch. And despite there being "yet another Batman movie" every several years, many of them have been good, because they approach it from different angles, and often with a focus first on making a good movie, not just making money.

Tim Burton's take on Batman was different/darker, and good.

Then Joel Schumacher's Batman films sucked, because they were re-aimed at mass market appeal and tie-in monetization.

Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy were back to being different and were great, primarily because Nolan is a great filmmaker first and foremost.

Then the DCEU Batman films sucked because they were aimed at mass market appeal and "extended universe building" to try to make buckets of money off copying Marvel and generating tons of spin-offs and tie-ins.

But Matt Reeve's latest Batman film was back to being good, because it was different, and returned to a primary narrower focus on making a good film, not just being able to be translated into toy sales and copious easy sequels/spin-offs.

The first time I watched the trailer I just laughed.

But,James Gunn. Guardians of the Galaxy and all the cool 70's music. Plus Peacemaker?

And didn't he fight off some diversity bullshit with the help of his actors?

I will happily watch it.