Superman Reboot

[The Joker]

What MIGHT be going on was Zaslav wanted to see which Batman was the most popular, and then pursue that one. I would imagine that Zaslav is under immense pressure to greenlight as many Batman projects as possible because he's the most successful DC character by far. So, my guess would be that eventually a choice will have to be made between the Reeves Batman and the BATB Batman

IF that's the case, that's yet another example of nonsensical studio thinking.

Post-Merger, and being that there's a severe debt issue that has to, one way or another, be dealt with (among other issues), you'd think the pressure to greenlight various multiversial Batman projects would be a no-brainer. Rather than, hitching all your bets on one singular horse. Which appears to be Zaslav's preferred DCEU strategy in, essentially, publicly poo-pooing the notion of different incarnations running simultaneously. Why limit your valuable IP to just one individual take? Especially when audiences are now more conditioned than ever to this type of storytelling. Ultimately, it quickly becomes not a question of why, but why not?

The idea of developing three Supermen simultaneously also makes a certain amount of sense. WB did something similar circa 1999-2001 when they developed Batman Beyond, Batman Vs. Superman (not the Snyder thing, something else) and a Year One film all the same time. There was probably never a chance of making all three films. Rather, WB wanted to evaluate which one had the most commercial potential and then produce that one.

It's ironic that none of those got made, but that was a different time and place with Hollywoodland. I tend to lump in Abrams' Superman Flyby script along with those, which probably had a good chance in getting made back then, had it not been for AICN roasting the leaked 1st draft (if memory serves). I understand there were a 2nd, and possibly a 3rd draft changing things around, but the damage was already done by that stage. In Oct 2022, the Abrams Superman thing has been in development for quite a while and has yet to be officially cancelled. Unlike Cavill. Then, evidently, Gunn was tapped to write his own Superman script (something that WB wanted him to do from the jump 2-3 years ago, but he wanted to do "The Suicide Squad" instead). Followed up by WBD greenlighting Cavill's return as Superman cameo for "Black Adam", and subsequent announcement that he's back in the role. However, Gunn and Safran are announced as Co-Chairmen, Zaslav makes his interesting "no four Batmans" comment, and Cavill is unceremoniously dropped from the role about a month later ("We didn't fire him, we just didn't hire him. Honest!"). Which was a pretty lickety-split turnaround from something that was only just being actively developed a month or two prior before it was somehow quickly deemed to not be commercially viable any longer. Not even for a one-off Elseworlds movie even. It's a curious thing.

I'm sorry, but it sincerely comes across like Cavill got left holding the bag. For reasons not entirely clear at the moment.

[The Laughing Fish]

I'm seeing a lot of shills in the media rewriting recent history to downplay the whole Cavill debacle and try to make WBD look favourable. For example, Mark Hughes of Forbes blatantly said on Twitter that Cavill never said that he was coming back for more Superman projects after Black Adam, and anybody who says otherwise is a "lying, angry, hostile" fan.

The real liars are corporate stooges like Hughes, because anybody with a functioning brain and memory knows Cavill said he was back and promised his Black Adam cameo would be "a taste of what's to come" when he posted that Instagram video. Don't forget that Cavill explained he made this announcement because he had WBD's approval when he was forced to share the terrible news a month later.

To add further insult to injury, the official WB and DC social media accounts celebrated Cavill's presumed return:





As I said before, Cavill and his agent Garcia should've known better than to take the studio's word. But for Christ's sake, this still doesn't change the fact that WBD gave Cavill the confidence that they were operating in good faith, to the point they even advertised his comeback in the media. The interview with Josh Horowitz is yet another example. Does anybody seriously mean to tell me that Cavill wouldn't have participated in this publicity stunt if he didn't have WBD's blessing?

I can only imagine that with the relief of Hamada and Emmerich's removal from the studio ranks, in addition to the promises that WBD were making, Cavill thought he could trust them. Big mistake on his part, because it's evidently clear that WBD is just as dysfunctional as the previous regime.

I've read excuses that Black Adam's box office failure is to blame for the end of not only Cavill but the whole Snyderverse, and I think that excuse is nonsense. The Rock had been advertising his movie as a change of the DC hierarchy and even went to so far as to describe his movie as the start of the "Black Adam Cinematic Universe". FFS, he was even asked which Joker he wanted Black Adam to face off against, and his answer was the guy from Matt Reeves's Batman. Does THAT sound like Black Adam was going to be faithful to the Snyderverse? No, it doesn't.

The Rock had his own agenda of starting his own franchise and wanted to use Cavill as a hook to get more people's attention. But you can't simply use Black Adam's failure to justify Cavill's ousting when Superman is only in a quick few-second cameo at the end of the movie. That's ridiculous.

I'm sorry, but it sincerely comes across like Cavill got left holding the bag. For reasons not entirely clear at the moment.

The whole episode makes no sense, and it tarnishes WBD's reputation much further. Like I said in my last post, one reason I can think of why this mess unfolded was that there is a division within WBD's ranks. Michael De Luca and Pam Abdy were reportedly in charge of the DC side of things for a temporary period of time until Zaslav chose the people he wanted in charge of DC Studios. As I mentioned before, those two people were reportedly in favour of bringing the likes of Affleck and Cavill back - hence their Aquaman and Black Adam cameos and consideration of a JL revival - until Gunn and Safran were hired. With the rumour going around that some people within WBD and DC ranks doubt Gunn's ability as a CEO, I can only imagine the dissenting voices are coming from the camp whose decisions were overturned. They were probably just as humiliated as Cavill was.

But that still doesn't explain the massive oversight on Zaslav's part, and it destroys any credibility he was trying to build by promising to restore relationships with talent, as he vowed a few times publicly.  If the higher-ups at WBD couldn't prevent Cavill's cameo for whatever reason, at the very least they should've made it very clear to Henry that his future was not guaranteed.

Another reason I can think of is WBD did this on purpose to spite and humiliate Cavill, and never had any intention to bring him back other than try to bump up Black Adam's box office. After all the sh*t this studio has put people through over the years - no matter which executives are in charge - is this really that far-fetched?

If I had to squeeze my mind to think of another factor behind these outrageous decisions lately, it could be because part of that is due to Zaslav and co waiting for yet another merger buyout, as the studio doesn't have enough money to produce anything at the moment:
https://boundingintocomics.com/2023/02/10/james-gunns-dcu-slate-rumored-to-be-bait-for-potential-buyer-allegedly-has-secret-plan-in-case-apple-amazon-or-universal-gobble-up-warner-bros/

Whatever the reasons are, nothing is going to fix the place. The negligence and brutal mismanagement at Warners over the last seven years will be studied, analyzed, and used as a cautionary tale in how not to run a business one day. 

[The Dark Knight]

The idea of developing three Supermen simultaneously also makes a certain amount of sense. WB did something similar circa 1999-2001 when they developed Batman Beyond, Batman Vs. Superman (not the Snyder thing, something else) and a Year One film all the same time. There was probably never a chance of making all three films. Rather, WB wanted to evaluate which one had the most commercial potential and then produce that one.

I'm hoping the Corenswet film is the only film they're developing now, and all the other ideas have been scrapped. What I'd be after right now is a Superman film that leans in to something galactic. Meaning less Earth bound problems and more plots that involve shrinking and stealing planets, alien invaders, a fully decked out Fortress of Solitude, Metropolis being a true futuristic city of tomorrow and labs full of high tech gadgetry. But I read that Gunn plans to centre the film around tension in the Middle East, soon after we had that type of plot line with BvS.

[The Laughing Fish]

You gotta love the hypocrisy over the positive reactions surrounding Hawkgirl, Mr. Terrific, Guy Gardner and Metamorpho being planned to be in this movie, with castings and all. One of the biggest criticisms BvS faced was "catching up to Marvel" by putting members of the Justice League in cameos instead giving each character their own film first before teaming up (which by the way, not even the MCU did that - Black Widow and Hawkeye didn't get their own spin-offs until after Endgame). Yet in Legacy, not only are these new characters debuting in a Superman reboot, they allegedly aren't cameos - they're supposed to have significant roles.

At this stage, MOS remains the only true standalone Superman film to date.

One of the castings was Nathan Fillion playing Guy Gardner. So, Cavill is deemed "too old", according to the creep Gunn...but a much older Fillion can play a Green Lantern. Right.

I wouldn't have anything against Fillion personally, if he didn't kiss Whedon's ass and expressed his desire to work with his buddy again...even after the whole JL and Buffy fiasco. Gunn surely keeps good company with assholes, doesn't he?