DC Extended Universe / DC Universe - Timeline

BB10 said:
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.
Click to expand...
People working on a movie need to buy the rights to IPs, regardless of whether the company overseeing the movie's production owns the IP - they need to pay for it out of the budget. Often cameos remain as just that - cameos - meaning they won't pay for the IPs themselves, which is why Emma hasn't been fully name-dropped in-movie. Despite this, the director of the movie said that it is Emma, so the fact that they didn't name-drop them in-movie is irrelevant.
 
The wording of it is just vague, since they can't literally say "the movies take place in the same universe" though they can say "it's reasonable to assume they do" (paraphrasing for convenience) to protect themselves from copyright
 
BB10 said:
I'm sure Emma from Lights Out as an IP is not protected on the same level as Spider-Man or Wolverine.
Click to expand...
I don't know much about Lights Out, but I imagine if Emma was impactful enough to get cameoed it would be reasonable to need to get the rights for their IP
 
styphlcccs said:
People working on a movie need to buy the rights to IPs, regardless of whether the company overseeing the movie's production owns the IP - they need to pay for it out of the budget. Often cameos remain as just that - cameos - meaning they won't pay for the IPs themselves, which is why Emma hasn't been fully name-dropped in-movie. Despite this, the director of the movie said that it is Emma, so the fact that they didn't name-drop them in-movie is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt paying for IP is necessary for a character just because they have the same name and occupation as another when what was shown in Shazam was so generic. Even Marvel Comics occasionally puts Clark Kent easter eggs in their comics, I haven't heard they got into legal trouble over that. Despite the appearances clearly displaying some of the iconic aspects of the DC character.
marvel.fandom.com

Clark Kent (Earth-616)

25 appearance(s) of Clark Kent (Earth-616) 4 mention(s) of Clark Kent (Earth-616) 4 image(s) of Clark Kent (Earth-616) 1 quotation(s) by or about Clark Kent (Earth-616) Clark Kent at the Appendix to the Handbook of the Marvel Universe
marvel.fandom.com marvel.fandom.com

Apparently they even named him as Clark Kent in a handbook.

styphlcccs said:
The Director has implied it's more than an easter egg
Click to expand...
And even he can't say outright it is the same universe because it is just his opinion, not necessarily the studios' or other creators'.
 
BB10 said:
And even he can't say outright it is the same universe because it is just his opinion, not necessarily the studios' or other creators'.
Click to expand...
The Rule of God is a common rule of thumb, where the creator of something can say what they want and it be canon.

The Clark Kent thing is, again, a cameo, though it has been stated that the Marvel and DC multiverses are separate from each other. There is no reason to assume Lights out is separate from the DCEU universe.
BB10 said:
I seriously doubt paying for IP is necessary for a character just because they have the same name and occupation as another when what was shown in Shazam was so generic.
Click to expand...
Yes, paying for an IP is not necessary just because of a shared name/occupation, because of the genericness of the cameo. If it were to be shown as outright the same character in the movie, then they'd need to pay for it, though cameos don't require payments (unless it's a real person)
 
styphlcccs said:
The Rule of God is a common rule of thumb, where the creator of something can say what they want and it be canon.
Click to expand...
Yeah but this is just one creator out of many. DCEU is a joint project.

styphlcccs said:
The Clark Kent thing is, again, a cameo, though it has been stated that the Marvel and DC multiverses are separate from each other. There is no reason to assume Lights out is separate from the DCEU universe.
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking about the DC and Marvel Multiverse but rather that Marvel can get away with the Clark Kent cameo because of its genericness.

styphlcccs said:
Yes, paying for an IP is not necessary just because of a shared name/occupation, because of the genericness of the cameo. If it were to be shown as outright the same character in the movie, then they'd need to pay for it, though cameos don't require payments (unless it's a real person)
Click to expand...
It was a cameo appearance though, wasn't it? And like I said they shied away from even using her first name (and the character apparently had no surname in Lights Out), despite the fact that they wouldn't even get into trouble with how generic the character was portrated in Shazam even if named. This was my point.

Pro Bot said:
I don't think other creators would even disagree with him. I think they'd just have no opinion on it.
Click to expand...
Probably not, but I doubt they would seriously consider it canon and pay any attention not to condradict it in their movies.
 
Ok so, Lights Out and Shazam! are both distributed by WB, produced by New Line and directed by David F. Sandberg. There would be no legal troubles over anything as both films are under the same roof. Yes DCEU is a collaboration by multiple creators, and if one makes something canon it's mostly respected. In the matter we're talking tho, there is no reason for mentioning LO outside of having Emma in both LO and S! (even played by the same actress). David intended it to be the same character, he mentioned that multiple times. So it'd make sense to take LO as canon as there's nothing that contradicts it and only claims that confirms it being canon.
 
Last edited:
Pro Bot said:
I guarantee this is total BS. I've seen the exact same footage they have.

The "better" dimension is the evil Peacemaker timeline where his Dad is alive. The normal reality is the DCU.
Click to expand...
I am not the biggest believer in news media at all, but it feels weird for ComicBook to just openly lie to that degree. They have never been that extreme before.
 
I don't have access to Welcome to Metropolis, but at the end of the book, doesn't Superman give an interview to Lois? Wouldn't this be a contradiction with the movie?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top