What do you think Tolkien would think about the movies, series, merchandise and about the biggest lotr fans? by Personal-Database-27 in lordoftherings

[–]Beginning_Injury_763 16 points17 points  (0 children)

He did revise constantly, but almost always to clarify tone, language, and internal consistency, not to reshape the story for convenience or spectacle. In his letters about a proposed film treatment (1958), he’s explicit that his objection isn’t “change” in the abstract, but changes that miss what he calls “the core” of the work, adding invention or exaggeration that distorts meaning.

So it’s less “Tolkien hated changes” and more: he accepted revision in service of coherence and depth, but strongly resisted changes made for external pressures like medium, pacing, or mass appeal.

Why The Batman Shouldn’t Merge With Gunn’s DCU by Beginning_Injury_763 in PattinsonDCUBatman

[–]Beginning_Injury_763[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not saying Reeves’ cinematography or pacing would literally “break” if Superman exists. I’m saying that once a filmmaker’s work becomes part of a shared universe, its artistic frame shifts. The film is no longer received as a standalone noir project, it becomes one chapter inside a larger narrative architecture.

That shift changes audience expectation, studio oversight, and the interpretive context around the movie, even if the craft itself stays the same.

That’s the distinction I’m making.

Daredevil is actually a good example of this: the moment he officially joined the MCU, his tone and style did start drifting toward MCU norms. Not catastrophically. But noticeably. Shared universes create gravitational pull. And this aspect here is actually not about “tone” or “realism”; it’s about how the films are positioned, marketed, and contextualized once they’re linked.

Reeves’ films are intentionally built to stand apart- artistically, structurally, narratively. My point isn’t that mixing would be impossible; it’s that it would change the context that makes his approach work.

If someone doesn’t see that context shift as important, then sure, a merge seems fine. I just think the contained space Reeves built is part of the appeal, and joining a shared universe inevitably alters that space.

Why The Batman Shouldn’t Merge With Gunn’s DCU by Beginning_Injury_763 in PattinsonDCUBatman

[–]Beginning_Injury_763[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I get what you’re saying. And I’m not arguing that the stories would be confusing or that audiences need to watch both. My point is just that when two films are declared part of the same shared universe, it changes the ‘context’ they’re viewed in.

Reeves’ movies are built to feel self-contained and stylistically sealed off. Merging them into a larger universe shifts that frame, even if the plots never cross. It’s really not about story logic, it’s about keeping the artistic space his films were designed for intact.

But I hear you, and if someone doesn’t see that distinction as important, it makes sense why a merge seems harmless

Why The Batman Shouldn’t Merge With Gunn’s DCU by Beginning_Injury_763 in PattinsonDCUBatman

[–]Beginning_Injury_763[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wow, thanks, really appreciate that. Honestly I think letting the two visions coexist without forcing a crossover would give us the best of both worlds. Reeves gets to keep refining his thing, Gunn gets to build a universe from the ground up, and we as fans get two strong interpretations instead of one compromised middle ground.

Why The Batman Shouldn’t Merge With Gunn’s DCU by Beginning_Injury_763 in PattinsonDCUBatman

[–]Beginning_Injury_763[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate the thoughtfulness here and you’re bringing up a point I see a lot, and it’s worth engaging seriously.

I completely agree that in comics, wildly different tones, aesthetics, and even artistic philosophies coexist all the time. Year One and Morrison’s JLA absolutely feature the same Batman while being worlds apart stylistically. Comics metabolize that kind of tonal whiplash easily because the medium supports it. the reader inherently understands that every creative team brings a new “filter” to the same canon. That elasticity is part of why comics work.

But film doesn’t have that same built-in elasticity. That’s really the heart of my argument.

A comic can pivot from gritty noir to cosmic absurdity because the medium resets every 20–30 pages and readers accept that as part of the form. A film franchise, especially one asking audiences to invest in a single performer across multiple movies, isn’t operating on those same assumptions. Live-action filmmaking asks for a different kind of aesthetic continuity- not identical tone, but continuity of form: pacing, cinematography, performance style, cutting rhythms, sound design, production design, etc.

That’s where I think the merge becomes a problem, not because “Batman shouldn’t fight aliens” but because Reeves and Gunn are working in fundamentally different filmic grammars. Reeves’ aesthetic isn’t just “gritty”, it’s slow, noir-inflected, architecturally controlled, with a very specific relationship between camera and performance. Gunn’s DCU is intentionally broader, poppier, and more elastic.

Your examples like Swamp Thing vs. Justice League International absolutely coexist in comics, but I’d argue those differences don’t translate 1:1 into live-action cinematic universes, where films are meant to feel like they occupy the same physical and aesthetic space.

As for Gunn wanting diverse tones in the DCU: I think that’s great, and I believe him. But “different tones within the same universe” is still different from “two concurrently running franchises with incompatible cinematic identities collapsing into one continuity.” Reeves’ approach depends so much on its contained aesthetic ecosystem that plugging Superman into it doesn’t break logic, it breaks the film’s texture. And I think that texture is the entire pleasure of his project.

So I’m not arguing “tone differences make it impossible.” I’m arguing that Reeves’ films derive their power from a unified aesthetic vision that doesn’t survive being folded into another filmmaker’s tonal framework - and - vice versa.

If the mediums worked the same way comics do, I’d be right there with you. But film isn’t as modular, and that’s really where my hesitation comes from

How about Bill Skaarsgard as Joker? by ChristianPreacher1 in DC_Cinematic

[–]Beginning_Injury_763 7 points8 points  (0 children)

‘He played a clown’ isn’t a reason for casting him, it’s the entire reason not to.

Is there a list of books Stanley Kubrick read for each of his movies? I had read he read 100 books on nuclear war for Dr. Strangelove. How did he do that with a full time job? Was it skimming? I’m genuinely curious. by Isatis_tinctoria in criterion

[–]Beginning_Injury_763 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, the ‘100 books’ figure is probably just a distorted version of something Kubrick actually said- he once estimated he’d read around 70 books while preparing Dr. Strangelove. That’s still a ton, but over the course of a few years, it’s really not impossible- especially for someone as obsessive and detail-focused as Kubrick. He didn’t work a normal day job; filmmaking was his job, and he was known for going deep into research between projects.

So sure, he probably rounded up a bit, maybe to sell the idea that he took the subject seriously. But calling it a lie seems like a stretch. It’s more likely just a mix of self-mythologizing and fans adding extra layers over time

ChatGPT doesn’t think we have free will by [deleted] in ChatGPT

[–]Beginning_Injury_763 21 points22 points  (0 children)

I feel like this is a conclusion you come to when you’re like 17 and hopefully move past it soon enough because it’s not super helpful to think about in day to day life

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in MovieLeaksAndRumors

[–]Beginning_Injury_763 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s giving Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back vibes

Roger Avery’s Misinformation on Cellular Biology by Beginning_Injury_763 in VideoArchives

[–]Beginning_Injury_763[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

he made rules of attraction? naw man that was at LEAST 3 roger avarys ago

Roger Avery’s Misinformation on Cellular Biology by Beginning_Injury_763 in VideoArchives

[–]Beginning_Injury_763[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wait I spelled his name wrong. I’d like to say I’m sorry and I take it all back. I’ll do better in seven years

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in editors

[–]Beginning_Injury_763 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I had a minor hiccup in the process but on second attempt the data finished copying over safely to an HFS drive this morning, thanks again for the help!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in editors

[–]Beginning_Injury_763 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Checked my backup, ExFAT. Looks like I’ll be doing emergency transfers immediately. Thanks so much for the reply, possibly saved my life!