DC Extended Universe / DC Universe - Timeline

[Pro Bot]

IMO, the franchises are too unconnected, even if owned by Warner Bros. Realistically, if a Conjuring movie was to somehow reference Batman and Superman, it would be as fictional characters and not as real people. Just one director in large franchises like these probably couldn't decide which separate franchises are canon to each other.

I mean I guess it's up to interpretation.

Lights Out isn't part of The Conjuring universe. It's just one movie.

 

[BB10]

Lights Out isn't part of The Conjuring universe. It's just one movie.

Sorry, I'm not knowledgeable on either of them. I meant Lights Out then.

 

[Pro Bot]

Sorry, I'm not knowledgeable on either of them. I meant Lights Out then.

In that case, doesn't that change your argument? Lights Out is a Warner Bros film directed by David Sandberg. Shazam! is a Warner Bros film directed by David Sandberg. There's a crossover character between the films with the same actor playing the same character who is a social worker in both films. David Sandberg said she moved to Philadelphia after Lights Out for her cameo and that you could argue they're the same universe.

I think there's a huge misunderstanding here. Lights Out isn't part of a franchise. It's literally just one film. The Annabelle doll in the film was confirmed to just be an easter egg before he confirmed Lights Out is arguably the same universe.

 

[BB10]

In that case, doesn't that change your argument? Lights Out is a Warner Bros film directed by David Sandberg. Shazam! is a Warner Bros film directed by David Sandberg. There's a crossover character between the films with the same actor playing the same character who is a social worker in both films. David Sandberg said she moved to Philadelphia after Lights Out for her cameo and that you could argue they're the same universe.

I think there's a huge misunderstanding here. Lights Out isn't part of a franchise. It's literally just one film. The Annabelle doll in the film was confirmed to just be an easter egg before he confirmed Lights Out is arguably the same universe.

Yeah but it's still the word of one director working on a franchise (DC) helmed by multiple people. If both franchises in a large part were helmed by him, that would be another matter, but only Lights Out is apparently.

 

[Pro Bot]

They allowed him to do it. There's no contradictions. They can exist in the same universe without it being part of the DCEU franchise.

 

[BB10]

They allowed him to do it. There's no contradictions. They can exist in the same universe without it being part of the DCEU franchise.

Yet apparently she's not even called by the same name in the two movies??? ("Emma" in Lights Out and "E.B. Glover" in Shazam). It's just implied that E. stands for Emma. That alone seems to show it is an easter egg and not necessarily a canon confirmation.

Just because they let the director have fun doesn't mean it is a canon confirmation, especially when they shy away from even calling her Emma.

 

[styphlcccs]

Yet apparently she's not even called by the same name in the two movies??? ("Emma" in Lights Out and "E.B. Glover" in Shazam). It's just implied that E. stands for Emma. That alone seems to show it is an easter egg and not necessarily a canon confirmation.

In Hatchet III, Stretch from TCM2 makes a cameo under an alternate name, yet it's still implied to be the same character, similar to the Lights Out cameo. I also feel as though, despite David Sandberg not directing the entirety of the DCEU, would still have Rule of God apply in this case

 

[Pro Bot]

Her name was only shown on a desk in the film. Her first name beginning with "e" was obviously an intentional nod to it being Emma from Lights Out.

 

[Pro Bot]

In Hatchet III, Stretch from TCM2 makes a cameo under an alternate name, yet it's still implied to be the same character, similar to the Lights Out cameo. I also feel as though, despite David Sandberg not directing the entirety of the DCEU, would still have Rule of God apply in this case

This one is more explicit than that. Emma's name isn't even changed, it's just not revealed in the film.

 

[BB10]

In Hatchet III, Stretch from TCM2 makes a cameo under an alternate name, yet it's still implied to be the same character, similar to the Lights Out cameo. I also feel as though, despite David Sandberg not directing the entirety of the DCEU, would still have Rule of God apply in this case

And what official connection does TCM and Hatchet have? (Genuine question) An easter egg or a cameo doesn't automatically mean same continuity.

The word of god thing is more arguable when there are multiple creators and the franchises are so separate.

This one is more explicit than that. Emma's name isn't even changed, it's just not revealed in the film.

Yet they shied away from showing the full name.

 

[Pro Bot]

Let's look at the facts.

1. There are statements that they're connected.
2. There's overlap between the two in terms of creatives.
3. There's no contradictions.
4. There's no statements otherwise.

If we're basing it on out-of-universe statements and in-universe evidence specifically, they would be connected. There's no evidence otherwise, just the opinion that they don't personally agree with it.

I've got four sources that they're connected. Are there any sources that claim otherwise?

 

[styphlcccs]

And what official connection does TCM and Hatchet have? (Genuine question) An easter egg or a cameo doesn't automatically mean same continuity.

Stretch, a reporter, makes a cameo in it, and the actor said it's the same person and meant to imply the same continuity (I think).

Yet they shied away from showing the full name.

Most likely because they couldn't get the rights to the character themselves, like Eugene being Billy from Black Christmas in Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon.

 

[BB10]

Stretch, a reporter, makes a cameo in it, and the actor said it's the same person and meant to imply the same continuity (I think).

Most likely because they couldn't get the rights to the character themselves, like Eugene being Billy from Black Christmas in Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon.

Apparently, the character from Lights Out is simply called "Emma" though. Obviously no rights needed for that.

 

[styphlcccs]

Apparently, the character from Lights Out is simply called "Emma" though. Obviously no rights needed for that.

They'd need to get the rights for the character themselves, not the name

 

[BB10]

Let's look at the facts.

1. There are statements that they're connected.
2. There's overlap between the two in terms of creatives.
3. There's no contradictions.
4. There's no statements otherwise.

If we're basing it on out-of-universe statements and in-universe evidence specifically, they would be connected. There's no evidence otherwise, just the opinion that they don't personally agree with it.

I've got four sources that they're connected. Are there any sources that claim otherwise?

I suppose extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

They'd need to get the rights for the character themselves, not the name

I doubt it is illegal for one actor to play roles with the same first name or has the same job. The character sounds generic enough.

 

[Pro Bot]

I suppose extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Why is it a extraordinary claim that a director's two films are the same universe?

I don't think these statements are really ambiguous either.

 

[Pro Bot]

He even clarified that Annabelle is just an easter egg before suggesting that Lights Out is a shared universe link.

 

[styphlcccs]

I doubt it is illegal for one actor to play roles with the same first name or has the same job. The character sounds generic enough.

Characters in franchises get copyrighted as IPs- it's more than just the same actor, name, job, etc. You cannot explicitly include a copyrighted character if you don't have the rights to them - like how in Deadpool & Wolverine a picture of Iron Man and Spider-Man can be seen, but someone is standing in front of the picture covering Spider-Man because Marvel would need to get the rights from Sony to include them in their movie.

 

[BB10]

Characters in franchises get copyrighted as IPs- it's more than just the same actor, name, job, etc. You cannot explicitly include a copyrighted character if you don't have the rights to them - like how in Deadpool & Wolverine a picture of Iron Man and Spider-Man can be seen, but someone is standing in front of the picture covering Spider-Man because Marvel would need to get the rights from Sony to include them in their movie.

I'm sure Emma from Lights Out as an IP is not protected on the same level as Spider-Man or Wolverine. You say IP is more than just the same actor, name and job, what was so descriptive about the character seen in Shazam beyond those qualities?

Furthermore, aren't both franchises entirely owned by Warner Bros? Don't think it is the same situation as Spider-Man in DP&W, since Spider-Man is still partially owned by Sony.

Why is it a extraordinary claim that a director's two films are the same universe?

Because Lights Out and DCEU are two entirely different movie franchises, with the director in question being only one of the many creators involved in the latter franchise, and with the only thing connecting the two franchises being an easter egg.

 

[BB10]

and with the only thing connecting the two franchises being an easter egg.

*Being an easter egg they didn't even commit fully to, as they shied away from calling her Emma.