[Movie/Comic] DC Extended Universe - Page 85 (2025)

No, there is no evidence either way. I personally don't even believe that it will be such a film, and have said that it's unlikely in this very thread.

But the point is audiences fear that it might be, because that was Gunn's winning formula so far. And more than that, it's an important part of the argument other people are making about Gunn's track record: i.e. that if you want to take the good from GotG as an indicator of future projects, you also have to take the rest.

My point isn't and has never been "I think this film will be XYZ!". It is and always has been "people aren't irrational or unjustified when they're voicing concern about this film".

And you can't dispel that by going, as people have, "just look to GotG, that worked! oh but don't worry, it won't be like GotG" because that's a biased argument. If you want to argue from track record, you can't be selective about it and assume the track record will speak to the good parts, but dismiss the bad parts as irrelevant.

Which is why I, personally, don't argue from track record at all. I don't care that the large cast concept worked for GotG. In fact I've pointed out several times that GotG being a comedy changes the parameters quite substantially, and that unless this also is a comedy (which I don't actually believe it will be, see above) that means the GotG "argument" isn't really useful at all.

I argue from conceptual structure. That the more characters there are and the greater prominence they have in the lore, the more difficult it is, purely conceptually, to do them all justice within the confines of a single film. That has nothing to do with anyone's track record, it's a simple consequence of the mechanics of narrative and character development.

I also argue from history. The fact that in general and in the DCEU in particular, trying to set up a cinematic universe through large-scale projects with lots of characters has not worked as well as more self-contained projects growing their character roster organically over several projects. Which, again, ties into the conceptual problem above: this isn't just coincidence or the result of particular creative individuals, it follows naturally from the mechanics of narrative and character development.

None of this means anything one way or another. It neither guarantees nor precludes success in any way. It only demonstrates that it's not unreasonable and not unjustified to be concerned. And that the arguments from track record brought up so far do very little to dispel that.

I'm not arguing from track record at all, but once again: if your argument is to look at Gunn's track record, you have to look at it from both ends. And for all his success, there is also a clear pattern of style: a large number of his films have been about misfits with quippy dialogue. You can't ignore that. It's difficult for many creatives to transcend their own style and preference. Heck we've seen it in the trailer with the music, which is very much in line with Gunn's 80s-style riffs that he likes to put into his films.

It's grossly fallacious to only look to the good parts in a track record, and simply pretend the bad parts don't matter.

I'm not judging the film. I couldn't, possibly.

I'm judging the trailer.

I'll judge the film when I've seen it. Until I can actually do that, I'll judge whatever else is available instead. And I fail to see why that would be problematic or controversial in any way.

As I've told another poster, if the only point to make is "don't be one of the screaming Twitter maniacs who prophecy the fall of civilization because they didn't like the Superman trailer" then I agree, but that's so trivial a point to agree on there's nothing to talk about - in either direction. There's no need to caution people against believing flat-earthers. We all know they're nuts. And there's no need to caution people against believing internet berserkers whose only possible reactions sit at the absolute extreme ends of the emotional spectrum.

If that was what you meant by your initial "suggestion", then you grossly misrepresented your intent by couching it in general and reasonable terms rather than outright warning against patently absurd extremism. If that wasn't your intent then you simply didn't think through the implications of what you were saying because you phrased your objection too haphazardly.

You're free to do that, but you should also recognize that this is not a very justifiable position. I've already talked about this in another post here: he'd be saying this even if it wasn't true. Because that's what his PR consultants would tell him to say, as they are keenly aware of the shadow GotG casts over this project (that's why they drop the name in the trailer). So irrespective of whether he's telling the truth or not, there is no good reason to believe him. And just to be clear: not believing what he says is true doesn't mean you think it's a lie. You just can't know if it is or isn't true, and he'd be saying it whether it was true or not; and that's why you shouldn't believe it.

Personally, I don't even care what he says. Only what he does. I'll judge materials for themselves, as they become available. Track records, histories, or professions of statements to content or direction don't matter to me one bit. They matter to executives and financiers and people who write marketing. They should not matter to audiences.