Minemrys:

Keaton's arc was never in a Cinematic Universe, and from what I recall, it fleshed out its character with 2 stand alone films. Affleck's character didn't have much of a development other than what the plot gave him.
There was a lot that was built about Bruce.
You want to reboot it, then reboot it with a continuity that doesn't drag the plot backwards. This shit just took us back 30 years. There really is no point bringing back Keaton.
Bro, you are a writer, you know this. This is just zig zag story telling not creativity.
You can defend it all you want but if there's a story hanging, and just for no reason, you leave it half way to go and concentrate on another story that doesn't improve what you have built, it's plain stupid.
If the plan is to bring back Affleck later on, why introduce Keaton? I have nothing against Keaton but I am all for continuity.

As I have said, the universe is being rebooted and as a result of that, lots of stories will be discarded, lots of stories will be introduced.

It doesn't matter whether an arc was originally part of the universe or not, the reboot chops it off or keeps it or introduces it.

Whether Batfleck arc is hanging or not, it doesn't mean anything. If the reoot demands his arc to be cut off, it will.

As I also said, Batfleck is not the only Batman with an arc and nothing stops his arc from being affected by the rebooted timeline. Nothing also stops a new Keaton's Batman arc from being introduced and explored.

Ask yourself, if our reality is to be rebooted, don't you think some arc will be wiped off? Of course they will. In the case of the DCEU Batfleck arc just happened to be one of those arcs.

It's not zig zag story telling, this is because same process will occur, if it's to be applied in reality. If reality is to be rebooted, some people and their arcs will be wiped off from existence. So yes, it's not a zig zag story telling pattern rather it's a realistic process or concept if applied to reality.

Besides, the rebooting model has been used to reset and change the DC universe numerous times in the comics which led to lots of characters and arcs been erased especially undeveloped ones. So I wonder why it's an issue when it comes to the DCEU and it's Batman.

Also, they aren't taking us back 30 years backwards because Keaton's Batman exist in the present albeit in a different universe and also the reboot merges two universe together. I don't see how that takes us back 30 years.

Batfleck isn't returning, not to my knowledge. Keaton is taking his place as the new Batman. Keaton's Batman will usher in his own arc into the DCEU which will begin at Batgirl and end in JL 3 or 4.

As for continuity, the Snyder continuity will be erased and a new continuity will be introduced after the Flash movie. Batfleck has no business with the new continuity. So whatever significant role he played was in the old continuity and they will be of no importance in the rebooted continuity. Keaton's Batman is going to have a significant role in the rebooted continuity and that's what WBD/ DC is focused on.

You should should stop bothering about the past and what should have been and instead focus on the present and what's coming.


#Xavier
#DCian

This is a scene on the argument of Man of Steel in my book, IDEAL, that is currently in writing. Just thought I should share


".....to me Man Of Steel is one of the greatest comic book movies or CBMs ever made," Xavier declared.

"Really!?" Danjuma said. "Too bad, because to me, that movie was a disappointment."

"And why? If I may ask," that was Dafe. The guys are in Danjuma's living room, keeping themselves entertained with bowls of chin chin and grilled steaks and a bottle of champagne.

"Man Of Steel wasn't a Superman movie, it was rather a Henry Cavil's movie trying to play Superman. The Superman I saw wasn't the Superman I know, that was an entirely new person. I'm still trying to figure out how Superman became one dark toned melancholic character, how did a Superman movie become a dark toned movie? When did Superman start killing? When did Superman started not caring about the lives of people during a battle? Me personally, I won't rank it among my top three best Superman films. It was a downfall from the Superman I know," Danjuma stated.

"So those are your reasons for your disappointment in the movie?" Dafe said.

"Definitely."

"Okay, permission to engage you on that," Xavier volunteered, ready to play Man Of Steel apologist.

"You're free. Let's see if you can de-orient me."

"The floor is yours Dr X," Bem said teasingly.

"Goat," Xavier jeered.

"You mean Greatest Of All Time, I can't agree less," Bem said dramatically.

"No I mean, ewu...ewu mbeee. Goat... animal goat," Xavier fired playfully.

"Anyways..." Xavier waved it off. "Let me start with Superman not caring about the lives of people. We need to understand here that the destruction on Metropolis wasn't caused by Superman but Zod who was hell bent on fighting in that city. Secondly, there's no way two powered beings like Superman and Zod will be engaged in a battle that destruction of such magnitude won't happen. We've seen it in similar movies, so I wonder what all the fuss is about."

"Superman should have led Zod out of the city," Danjuma objected.

"Not when Zod is hell bent on wrecking disaster on the people of Metropolis and Earth. That wouldn't have been possible cos the idiot wouldn't have budged or he would have always found a way to come back. Aside that, there was a Krypton terraforming technology somewhere on Earth attempting to terraform the planet wrecking destruction on cities in the process. So with that in mind, of what use will Superman taking Zod out of Metropolis be when the Metropolis will still and was still being destroyed thanks to the terraforming technology? So you see, there's nothing Superman could have done to prevent Metropolis from being destroyed by his battle with Zod, not when Zod is hell bent on wrecking havoc."

"Aside that, such destruction is synonymous with Superman movies. Lots of Superman films, both live action and animation, have such destruction, and guess what? Nobody criticizes those films base on that, but all of a sudden, when same is replicated in Man Of Steel, it becomes a sin. It seems to me that critics of that are either being bias for reasons best known to them or they're shiting on the movie for some other unknown reason. Only them know."

"Now to the issue of Superman killing or in this case snapping Zod's neck. In cases like this, the question I do ask is, what other ways could Zod had been defeated?" Xavier quizzed.
"Well, he could have been severely decapitated, hurled into space, sent back to the phantom zone or even defeated with a kryptonite," Danjuma answered.

"Let's take a look at your suggestions. You need to understand that Zod is the evil version of Superman. The power Superman possesses, he possesses. What empowers Superman, empowers him. What weakens Superman, weakens him. So do you really think that decapitating or hurling him into space or imprisoning him would have stopped him? What stops him from healing, all thanks to the sun. What stops him from finding his way back to Earth to complete what he started? Don't forget Zod is hell bent on destroying Earth for the sake of Krypton. What stops him from breaking off from his imprisonment. So you see the decapitation or space hurling won't work."

"What about the use of kryptonite?" That was Bem.

"If you were Superman would you reveal your weakness to the world considering how that might make you vulnerable to the government and other malevolent humans especially at such early time? Nobody in his right senses would have done that. Such sacrifice is very risky, it's not worth it."

"As for the issue of the phantom zone. You need to understand that the phantom zone isn't activated by a phantom zone projector but a technical process. The phantom zone projector wasn't brought into the universe in other to avoid major loop holes. Think about it, if the phantom zone projector exist, anytime the Justice League are facing a powerful villain, the next thing will be to utilize the projector on the villain. Now how will that make sense? Won't that ruin the DCEU? Think about that. Have you ever wondered why the mother box was destroyed in Zack Snyder's Justice League or why there had to be a flashpoint event? Certain things have to be done to eliminate loop holes in a franchise."

"Aside that, while will Jor El put a phantom zone projector in the ship of baby Kal El? Why? Considering how dangerous that will be. What if there's a mishap in space and that projector is activated, what will happen to the baby? No sensible father will make such move."

"Now to the technical process of activating the phantom zone, that was done which led to Zod's soldiers, Faora-Ul and Colonel Nathan Hardy to be sent into the phantom zone but unfortunately Superman and Zod were not close by, they were elsewhere fighting, so the phantom zone couldn't get them. And the phantom zone due to the technical process involved in activating it could only be activated once at that time, so which now leave us with the only option Superman had, kill Zod."

"The only way to stop Zod is to kill him just like the only way to stop Thanos or Darkseid or Doomsday is to kill them. They're certain people whose existence is a threat. Those people shouldn't be alive, that's the only way the world can be safe. Zod is one of those people, he had to die. Superman did what he had to do to save lives. Superman doesn't kill except if that's the only way like in the case of Doomsday. Killing Doomsday is the only way to stop him or it, same thing with Zod considering their power level. So Superman did what needed to be done to save Earth and that family that was about to be lasered."

"But even after snapping Zod's neck, Superman himself felt the impact of his actions which could be see in his grief."

"We shouldn't also forget that Superman wasn't Superman yet in Man Of Steel, not even in BvS, he was still trying to be Superman," Dafe chipped in.

"I disagree with that. What makes Superman, Superman? His decision to take on that mantle and the responsibility it held. That's what makes him Superman, so the moment he donned that suit, bore the mantle and it's responsibility, he became Superman. As for his values, he was taught such by his adopted parents. The values Superman possess wasn't learnt from Jor El or Krypton or a Superman training institute, rather it was his adopted parents that inculcated such into him. So the whole 'Superman killed because he wasn't yet Superman' is false. Superman killed because it was the only way to stop Zod. Due to the values he possessed, all thanks to his adopted parents, he felt the impact of his killing causing him to grief."

"Despite the fact that I love Man Of Steel and it's matured and realistic take on Superman, I can't just help but admit that I aren't a fan of it's dark tone or seriousness. Like why make Superman dark in tone? Why make him all serious and melancholic? What was the essence? Superman has always been a balanced toned character, why didn't they just leave him at that?" Xavier said.

"Well that's because of it's matured and realistic theme," Dafe said in response.

"Sweetheart, maturity as regards motion picture, has to do with quality and not it's tone. A movie can be light toned and still be matured like wise a movie can be all serious and be immatured. Saying dark tone equates to maturity is like someone saying that a dark toned or serious person is a matured person, that's hogwash. When it comes to humans, what makes one matured is intelligence, intrepid and responsibility and not dark tone or seriousness. So which means a light toned person can be matured and a dark tonal person can be immatured. Same way when it comes to films, quality is what defines maturity and not the tone, except one is speaking in context otherwise if you're going with the general or expanded meaning of it, maturity is quality."

"As for the realistic theme. What makes a film realistic is not the tone rather it's the concept being explored. Realism has nothing to do with the tone but the concept being explored, which means, a light tonal film can be realistic and a dark tonal film can be unrealistic. Shazam was realistic despite being light toned. Aquaman, Captain America: Winter Soldier, Captain America: Civil War were realistic despite being balanced toned. Shazam dealt with the issue of child abandonment, orphanhood, teenage rebellion, child abuse and it's accompanying trauma, family, teenage curiousity of the adult life etc. Aquaman dealt with the issue of pollution, racial discrimination, racial intolerance and racial hate, forced or arranged marriage etc. Winter Soldier and Civil War dealt with issues of political corruption and political interference in the activities of the heroes. All this are realistic concepts present in these movies making them realistic films despite their tone. Man Of Steel was realistic not because of it's dark tone but because of it's realistic concept. So the idea that Man Of Steel is dark in tone because of it's realistic theme is false."

"So there was absolutely no reason for that movie to be dark in tone. They should have made it balanced instead. Imagine a Superman movie with the Man Of Steel quality and an Aquaman or Civil War or Winter Soldier tone, such movie would have been a blockbuster, a billion dollar grosser, a certified one at that. It would have been well received but that wasn't the case thanks in part to it's dark tone."

"The movie was inspired by The Dark Knight trilogy but hey, Batman has always been a dark toned character so the dark tone of the TDK trilogy suited him unlike Man Of Steel for Superman. There are certain things about a character that should be left unchanged. Superman is a balanced toned character and they should have left him as that. Man Of Steel should have been balanced in tone. Aside that, Man Of Steel was a god tier movie," Xavier expressed


#Xavier
#DCian
#IDEAL

Xavier5:


As I have said, the universe is being rebooted and as a result of that, lots of stories will be discarded, lots of stories will be introduced.

It doesn't matter whether an arc was originally part of the universe or not, the reboot chops it off or keeps it or introduces it.

Whether Batfleck arc is hanging or not, it doesn't mean anything. If the reoot demands his arc to be cut off, it will.

As I also said, Batfleck is not the only Batman with an arc and nothing stops his arc from being affected by the rebooted timeline. Nothing also stops a new Keaton's Batman arc from being introduced and explored.

Ask yourself, if our reality is to be rebooted, don't you think some arc will be wiped off? Of course they will. In the case of the DCEU Batfleck arc just happened to be one of those arcs.

It's not zig zag story telling, this is because same process will occur, if it's to be applied in reality. If reality is to be rebooted, some people and their arcs will be wiped off from existence. So yes, it's not a zig zag story telling pattern rather it's a realistic process or concept if applied to reality.

Besides, the rebooting model has been used to reset and change the DC universe numerous times in the comics which led to lots of characters and arcs been erased especially undeveloped ones. So I wonder why it's an issue when it comes to the DCEU and it's Batman.

Also, they aren't taking us back 30 years backwards because Keaton's Batman exist in the present albeit in a different universe and also the reboot merges two universe together. I don't see how that takes us back 30 years.

Batfleck isn't returning, not to my knowledge. Keaton is taking his place as the new Batman. Keaton's Batman will usher in his own arc into the DCEU which will begin at Batgirl and end in JL 3 or 4.

As for continuity, the Snyder continuity will be erased and a new continuity will be introduced after the Flash movie. Batfleck has no business with the new continuity. So whatever significant role he played was in the old continuity and they will be of no importance in the rebooted continuity. Keaton's Batman is going to have a significant role in the rebooted continuity and that's what WBD/ DC is focused on.

You should should stop bothering about the past and what should have been and instead focus on the present and what's coming.


#Xavier
#DCian

Bros, you don't just reboot a universe when stories are freaking hanging. That's bad story telling. It's like MCU rebooting after Civil War, then bringing back Tobey Maguire's Spiderman.
Does it make any sense?
Which is why the reboot that's being done now, makes sense on the marvel part, cause if they choose to bring back old films, it will be an improvement not a step back cause they have developed the current ones.

Minemrys:

Bros, you don't just reboot a universe when stories are freaking hanging. That's bad story telling. It's like MCU rebooting after Civil War, then bringing back Tobey Maguire's Spiderman.
Does it make any sense?
Which is why the reboot that's being done now, makes sense on the marvel part, cause if they choose to bring back old films, it will be an improvement not a step back cause they have developed the current ones.

Can you show me any law that states that you can't reboot a universe when a story is hanging

There is no such law. Such law doesn't exist, which means a studio can choose to reboot a universe if they feel there's a need to do so. We see cases like that in the comics.

Studios don't just wake up and reboot a franchise. They have to be a reason for them to do so, and if they have that reason then they do it irrespective of whether stories are hanging or not.

So if WB/DC feel that the DCEU should be rebooted which results in certain arcs being wiped off and left hanging, there is nothing wrong with that. There's no law that prevents them from doing so.

It's a matter of choice. So I don't see what this complains are about.

As for marvel studios rebooting the MCU and bringing in Toby's Spiderman.
Marvel will and can reboot the universe if and only if they see a need to but if there's no reason for them to do so, they won't.
And if there's a reason for reboot which they decide to do and they choose to bring in Toby's Spiderman, so far they're going to establish a story arc for him, moving forward in the rebooted universe, then there's nothing senseless about that

Don't forget, if our reality is to bee rebooted, some persons will be wiped off resulting in their story arcs being left hanging. So if this is the case, I don't see why this is a problem in the DCEU.


So technically, I don't see why you're just making a fuss over it.
Always remember, there's no one way to run a franchise and if such is to happen in our reality, the outcome will be similar.


#Xavier
#DCian

Xavier5:


Can you show me any law that states that you can't reboot a universe when a story is hanging

There is no such law. Such law doesn't exist, which means a studio can choose to reboot a universe if they feel there's a need to do so. We see cases like that in the comics.

Studios don't just wake up and reboot a franchise. They have to be a reason for them to do so, and if they have that reason then they do it irrespective of whether stories are hanging or not.

So if WB/DC feel that the DCEU should be rebooted which results in certain arcs being wiped off and left hanging, there is nothing wrong with that. There's no law that prevents them from doing so.

It's a matter of choice. So I don't see what this complains are about.

As for marvel studios rebooting the MCU and bringing in Toby's Spiderman.
Marvel will and can reboot the universe if and only if they see a need to but if there's no reason for them to do so, they won't.
And if there's a reason for reboot which they decide to do and they choose to bring in Toby's Spiderman, so far they're going to establish a story arc for him, moving forward in the rebooted universe, then there's nothing senseless about that

Don't forget, if our reality is to bee rebooted, some persons will be wiped off resulting in their story arcs being left hanging. So if this is the case, I don't see why this is a problem in the DCEU.


So technically, I don't see why you're just making a fuss over it.
Always remember, there's no one way to run a franchise and if such is to happen in our reality, the outcome will be similar.


#Xavier
#DCian

It's what they call anti climax.

Official: DC won't be attending SDCC.
Seems DC Fandome is on.

Minemrys:

It's what they call anti climax.

1.) Does anti climax stop a franchise from being rebooted if there's need to? NO.

So what's the argument about?

2.) In a rebooted franchise, will there be changes in characters and arcs? YES.

So what's the argument about?

3.) Is there any law that stops a franchise from being rebooted if there's a hanging story despite the need to reboot? NO

So what exactly is the argument about?

To be sincere, I'm tired of this argument. I'm tired of having to repeat myself over and over and over again. Such argument bores and drains me.

So this is the last time I'm going to respond on this issue, but they're four things you need to know;

1.) No law stops a franchise from being rebooted if there's need to.

2.) In a rebooted franchise, some characters and stories will be erased irrespective of whether they're complete or not, hanging or not, developed or not.

3.) In a rebooted franchise, new characters and stories will be introduced and explored.

4.) Anti climax does not prevent a franchise from being rebooted.

So that's it for me and this argument. I'm done.

You can either choose to keep on complaining why they ended Batfleck arc with the reboot or you can choose to look forward to the plans they have for Keaton's Batman. Your choice

Adieus.


#Xavier
#DCian

abduleez1:

Harley Quinn S3! YEEESSS!!!

Xavier5:


1.) Does anti climax stop a franchise from being rebooted if there's need to? NO.

So what's the argument about?

2.) In a rebooted franchise, will there be changes in characters and arcs? YES.

So what's the argument about?

3.) Is there any law that stops a franchise from being rebooted if there's a hanging story despite the need to reboot? NO

So what exactly is the argument about?

To be sincere, I'm tired of this argument. I'm tired of having to repeat myself over and over and over again. Such argument bores and drains me.

So this is the last time I'm going to respond on this issue, but they're four things you need to know;

1.) No law stops a franchise from being rebooted if there's need to.

2.) In a rebooted franchise, some characters and stories will be erased irrespective of whether they're complete or not, hanging or not, developed or not.

3.) In a rebooted franchise, new characters and stories will be introduced and explored.

4.) Anti climax does not prevent a franchise from being rebooted.

So that's it for me and this argument. I'm done.

You can either choose to keep on complaining why they ended Batfleck arc with the reboot or you can choose to look forward to the plans they have for Keaton's Batman. Your choice

Adieus.


#Xavier
#DCian

Bros, there's no argument in this. People listen or watch stories to see a beginning, middle and end. Not a beginning, middle, prologue.
I don't even know why I stayed in this conversation for so long.

abduleez1:

Wetin James Gunn dey do for Harley Quinn

You asked for it. Here or is!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1htNUE32wE

Subreddit leaks....
Take with a pinch of salt.

Seems Superman is IN Black Adam. Leaks from test screening says Amanda Waller tells Supes she has someone that can take him on.

Waller meets Superman telling him she now has someone who can beat him. Seemingly setting up a Black Adam vs Superman story of sorts.

abduleez1:
Seems Superman is IN Black Adam. Leaks from test screening says Amanda Waller tells Supes she has someone that can take him on.

Quick what was black Adams mothers name?

GloriousGbola:


Quick what was black Adams mothers name?

Lol, don't know. Don't think many people or anyone know that. You fit ask Purpl3 sha.

pu7pl3:


Lol
Baba was being sarcastic.
Besides, I've never heard of Black Adam's mother.

Yea. I know he was sarcastic with the Martha scene. just curious if there's mention of her name.

GloriousGbola:

Quick what was black Adams mothers name?

ororoe. hails from Ethiopia

mirinder:
ororoe. hails from Ethiopia

Heh. Sure you aren't refercing storm of xmen.

Or are you trolling?

abduleez1:

is sandman an antihero/supervillain/superhero? Growing up on watching cartoons I knew him as Spiderman's archenemy?

GloriousGbola:

Heh. Sure you aren't refercing storm of xmen.
Or are you trolling?

I knew his mother like Adam knew his wife

mirinder:
is sandman an antihero/supervillain/superhero? Growing up on watching cartoons I knew him as Spiderman's archenemy?

The Sandman series is a DC series not marvel

mirinder:
is sandman an antihero/supervillain/superhero? Growing up on watching cartoons I knew him as Spiderman's archenemy?

DC's Sandman or Dream is different from Marvel's Spiderman villain. Even in DC there's like two versions of the Sandman.


Morpheus or Dream of the Endless is an immortal entity.

[quote author=Nickshrapnel post=114284718][/quote]


wow that was creative AF

The animation style seems slightly better than what we've gotten in the last two years. But looks a bit weird.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xeLibvJVIU

abduleez1:
Seems Superman is IN Black Adam. Leaks from test screening says Amanda Waller tells Supes she has someone that can take him on.

Don't know why Waller would want Supes taken down. I mean, between Supes and Black Adam who is more dangerous?