ASLUME (formerly Batman (DC Superheroes) 2024 - Rumors & Discussion)

[psqidexslizer]

TheBrickReporter is claiming there’s a Batman D2C coming next year.

Yalllegoname4myself is claiming there’s a Batman Iogo coming similar to the Marvel and Star Wars ones.

[CloneCommando99]

4 minutes ago, psqidexslizer said:

Yalllegoname4myself is claiming there’s a Batman Iogo coming similar to the Marvel and Star Wars ones.

Without figs naturally.

 

DC logo with the JL!!!

[psqidexslizer]

31 minutes ago, CloneCommando99 said:

Without figs naturally.

“Can we please stop getting Batman and Joker over and over again.”

[DaredevilFan]

Please let the D2C be a proper comic Batcave or Arkham 🤞🏻 If the Batman logo is true and it comes with figs, I would love to see different Batman movie figs coming with it. Like Bale, Pattinson, Keaton, Affleck Kilmer or clooney. But I imagine it’ll be one standard comic one with joker 

Edited October 15, 2024 by DaredevilFan

[NovaBricks]

My head says BTAS Arkham. My heart says Pattmobile or dumb Batman logo like the Marvel thing. 

[psqidexslizer]

We haven’t gotten a giant BtaS Batmobile yet.

[DaredevilFan]

Something kinda interesting on Brickreporters post about the D2C, whenever someone mentioned Arkham palnettt comments ‘👀’ I believe he was the one who leaked info about tumbler and the marvel airport set 

[psqidexslizer]

1 minute ago, DaredevilFan said:

Something kinda interesting on Brickreporters post about the D2C, whenever someone mentioned Arkham palnettt comments ‘👀’ I believe he was the one who leaked info about tumbler and the marvel airport set 

[Agent Kallus]

26 minutes ago, psqidexslizer said:

I'm not ready to trust that yet.

To dare to dream.

To hope against reason.

[Mandalorianknight]

2 hours ago, psqidexslizer said:

We haven’t gotten a giant BtaS Batmobile yet.

Isn't the 2006 one meant to loosely resemble it? 

I mean this doesn't really have a bearing on whether or not we'd get one in 2025, that's almost two decades and that batmobile looked rough for a UCS set even in that time, but still.

2 hours ago, DaredevilFan said:

Something kinda interesting on Brickreporters post about the D2C, whenever someone mentioned Arkham palnettt comments ‘👀’ I believe he was the one who leaked info about tumbler and the marvel airport set 

Don't do that. Don't get me hope.

[Lionbear8]

On 10/15/2024 at 7:34 AM, psqidexslizer said:

Either a comic based grey and black/blue or one based on Pattinson would be my guess. We already got Bale and Keaton and I don’t see Kilmer, Clooney, or Affleck happening.

 

If all there rumors are true, that means next years set lineup is:

- Lex Luthor vs Superman mech

- The Tumbler

- 4+ Batmobile with Mr Freeze

- Superman ($40)

- Buildable Batman

- unknown D2C

 

Honestly, the presence of Superman makes this a lot better than most recent years IMO. That said, I would really have liked another set or two based on BtAS and one more for Superman (there’s no way they’ll cover half the costumed characters in a $40 set, yet alone both Lois and Jimmy). I also wonder what the D2C will end up being. Obviously it’ll be Batman related, but we’ve been getting big display pieces like the snooze box and that Gotham City diorama in recent years. Maybe that trend will continue with a BtAS Arkham Asylum? 

also a Batman Logo set. 

5 hours ago, psqidexslizer said:

TheBrickReporter is claiming there’s a Batman D2C coming next year.

Yalllegoname4myself is claiming there’s a Batman Iogo coming similar to the Marvel and Star Wars ones.

another interesting year ahead.  with a little more colout then previous years, although the Skyline set was a excellent design in colour and scope. 

 

hopefully these leakers posts come true. 

 

 

2 hours ago, psqidexslizer said:

We haven’t gotten a giant BtaS Batmobile yet.

it's Batman  forever 30 years anniversary next year. 

 

[Legocentrico]

I would have preferred a more dynamic complex, a structure similar to Rivendell, with guard towers etc... but at this point I'll accept any Arkham, as long as it's big and full of minifigures :-p

[CloneCommando99]

It’s already better than Man of Steel.

If Gunn keeps this up, Marvel’s gonna have to step up its game.

 

(Buildable Krypto when?!!!! I need our goodest boy)

Edited October 16, 2024 by CloneCommando99

[ARC2149Nova]

I always thought Krypto was like a Kryptonian Labrador, not a glorified Jack Russel Terrier.

Terrible casting... (joking-not-joking)

[Max_Lego]

As my younger brother said: "Gunn is a Marvel guy. His goal is to destroy DC cinema from inside up."

And even if not, let's not forget that Gunn always was a big Scooby-Doo fan... Being sincerely into something doesn't guarantee respect for the source material and fanbase

[Classic_Spaceman]

4 hours ago, CloneCommando99 said:

It’s already better than Man of Steel.

Agreed! This shot shows that Gunn actually gets who Superman is! I love the vibe of just a regular country guy sitting on the front porch with his dog - Who also happen to be able to fly and survive in space! 
 

17 minutes ago, Max_Lego said:

As my younger brother said: "Gunn is a Marvel guy. His goal is to destroy DC cinema from inside up."

First, that implies that Gunn is loyal to Marvel as a company (not just that he prefers their characters/comics), and second, DC was doing a perfectly good job of blundering their cinematic universe on their own (so if Gunn really wanted to “destroy” them, he should have just let them keep on with what they were already doing!). 
 

5 hours ago, CloneCommando99 said:

It’s already better than Man of Steel.

Also, no Christ imagery thus far! I get where it comes from, but Snyder really overdid it to the point that it made Supes hard to relate to as a person. Our first two (official) looks at the character show him doing entirely Human things (pulling his boots on to go to ‘work’ on his day off, sitting on his front porch with his dog and looking at the ‘stars’). 👍
 

[BrickBob Studpants]

1 hour ago, Max_Lego said:

As my younger brother said: "Gunn is a Marvel guy. His goal is to destroy DC cinema from inside up."

…His goal is to destroy his own livelihood, since his main job now is being DC‘s counterpart to Kevin Feige? Yeah, solid plan, no notes.

I take it you didn‘t like The Suicide Squad or Peacemaker? No idea how either would „destroy DC“ given they‘re both some of the best-reviewed parts of the DCEU 

5 hours ago, CloneCommando99 said:

It’s already better than Man of Steel.

Couldn‘t agree more. MoS is a decent Elseworlds-type of story, but that version of Supes ain‘t it. Snyder just didn‘t get it.

This picture alone gives me confidence that he‘s gonna embrace the essence of the character much more than all the other versions combined (besides Reeve)!

[Renny The Spaceman]

38 minutes ago, Classic_Spaceman said:

First, that implies that Gunn is loyal to Marvel as a company (not just that he prefers their characters/comics)

Does he even prefer their comics? I've never heard him say anything about a character he's not adapted. Also surely if he was biased against someone it'd be the company that fired from over old tweets dug up by people mad at his political views?

4 hours ago, ARC2149Nova said:

I always thought Krypto was like a Kryptonian Labrador, not a glorified Jack Russel Terrier.

Terrible casting... (joking-not-joking)

Probably wanted a breed that looked ruffer and thus more like a stray. Probably a good filmmaking decision. 

 

1 hour ago, Max_Lego said:

As my younger brother said: "Gunn is a Marvel guy. His goal is to destroy DC cinema from inside up."

And even if not, let's not forget that Gunn always was a big Scooby-Doo fan... Being sincerely into something doesn't guarantee respect for the source material and fanbase

Man, it's a just a different breed of dog. I think the idea of "respect" for the source material is honestly such a meaningless phrase at this point. Tolkien would probably hate the Jackson LotR films, but their good films so it's not a big deal, fandoms just constantly throw around the phrase "respect" to give their opinions some weird moral stance when most of the time of something is shit it's not because they didn't "respect" the fans or creators but because they're desperately trying to pander to fans while not getting anything they adapt because despite what studios want us to believe producers aren't creatives and letting them drive films leads us to Black Adams, Ant-man 3s and Rise of Skywalkers.

Even if Gunn makes the worst film ever it won't be because he didn't respect Superman, it will be because whatever creative failings he has

[Max_Lego]

2 hours ago, Classic_Spaceman said:

First, that implies that Gunn is loyal to Marvel as a company (not just that he prefers their characters/comics), and second, DC was doing a perfectly good job of blundering their cinematic universe on their own (so if Gunn really wanted to "destroy” them, he should have just let them keep on with what they were already doing!).

It doesn't. You can finally destroy something that was already destroying itself but stopped mid-process and announced a 'reboot'

1 hour ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

…His goal is to destroy his own livelihood, since his main job now is being DC‘s counterpart to Kevin Feige? Yeah, solid plan, no notes.

I take it you didn‘t like The Suicide Squad or Peacemaker? No idea how either would „destroy DC“ given they‘re both some of the best-reviewed parts of the DCEU 

It's not his only source of money for living, I guess?..

Reviews are subjective. Matt Reeves' The Batman was very successful and is getting a sequel despite being not a deconstruction of Bruce Wayne's character (albeit a forced and senseless one - there are far better ways to deconstruct him) , but a movie that takes itself too much seriously. Many people enjoyed Ryan Johnson's The last Jedi, some of them even believing it's the best Star Wars movie ever. Almost all SW fans agree that ROTS is the best SW movie ever. This doesn't mean they are good movies.

1 hour ago, Renny The Spaceman said:

Man, it's a just a different breed of dog. I think the idea of "respect" for the source material is honestly such a meaningless phrase at this point. Tolkien would probably hate the Jackson LotR films, but their good films so it's not a big deal, fandoms just constantly throw around the phrase "respect" to give their opinions some weird moral stance when most of the time of something is shit it's not because they didn't "respect" the fans or creators but because they're desperately trying to pander to fans while not getting anything they adapt because despite what studios want us to believe producers aren't creatives and letting them drive films leads us to Black Adams, Ant-man 3s and Rise of Skywalkers.

This is a very good argument. Sometimes, when you don't have an adaptation that is faithful to the source material, a basic understanding of the general idea is enough. Tolkienists hated Jackson's movies but changed their minds after the Rings of Power happened. SW fans hated Prequels until the Sequels happened. Jackson's LOTR and SW Prequels aren't faithful to the originals, but they at least have some respect. That's why people like Burton's Batman movies despite the many obvious contradictions to the mythos.

But when you don't respect the original idea, you may compensate this with a new, creative take (Ledger's Joker from TDK is nothing like comic Joker) that fans will find interesting and won't mind... If it's smartly done and works in the movie's context, of course. 

1 hour ago, Renny The Spaceman said:

Even if Gunn makes the worst film ever it won't be because he didn't respect Superman, it will be because whatever creative failings he has

Maybe... Maybe not. The DCEU failed partially because Zack Snyder didn't understand DC characters, especially Batman. I don't think Gunn understands Superman, no matter how 'comic-accurate' the costume looks (it doesn't)

Edited October 16, 2024 by Max_Lego

[psqidexslizer]

Our favorite Gambit-based leaker(?) is saying 76329 is that 18+ Batman set and it’s Arkham Asylum, possibly based on BtAS. Seems like he’s just riding on palnett’s coattails, but regardless, I think there’s a good chance Arkham is next year’s modular building.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it is BtAS based. I would personally prefer it to be comics based with new villains like Hush, Ventriloquist, Mad Hatter, Black Mask, etc. but since we’re probably just gonna get repeats of old villains, I would actually prefer to get BtAS variants of them. 

As for the Krypto news, it’d be great if he was included in the Superman set. 

Edited October 16, 2024 by psqidexslizer

[CloneCommando99]

19 minutes ago, psqidexslizer said:

I wouldn’t be surprised if it is BtAS based. I would personally prefer it to be comics based with new villains like Hush, Ventriloquist, Mad Hatter, Black Mask, etc. but since we’re probably just gonna get repeats of old villains, I would actually prefer to get BtAS variants of them. 

I would prefer it to be comic based. Greater chances of us getting a Red Robin figure.

The cowl is perfect 😈😈

6 hours ago, ARC2149Nova said:

I always thought Krypto was like a Kryptonian Labrador, not a glorified Jack Russel Terrier.

Terrible casting... (joking-not-joking)

Coming from someone who owns a Labrador, I don’t mind it. I think it’s a good idea for Krypto to be a mixture of different breads. That way it adds to the he’s everyone’s dog feel. As everyone has a different taste in dogs, so Gunn’s appealing to as many of them as possible.
 

@Max_Lego: I understand your gripes. But at the end of the day, Gunn is taking a different approach to Superman. Like what Snyder did with Man of Steel.

Everyone’s entitled to their own opinions. And my personal opinion currently is dog = good.

 

 

I can’t wait for r/BatmanArkham Lego set.

[NovaBricks]

BtAS makes sense. Probably the most beloved and recognizable iteration of the Bat-universe, LEGO has already dipped its toe into it so it can keep production costs slightly lower, and it appeals to the 30-40 demo that grew up with the show and would be most likely to throw $400+ at it. And if we're being honest, I think BtAS is about as close to comic-based as you can get. I think if you asked the average person what they envision when they think Arkham, they'd picture the castle on the hill. Same goes for like 90% of the villains. Outside of Ledger (or maybe Nicholson) Joker, I bet most people think of the BtAS design when they think of any given bat-villain. 

[Renny The Spaceman]

12 minutes ago, Max_Lego said:

Maybe... Maybe not. The DCEU failed partially because Zack Snyder didn't understand DC characters, especially Batman. I don't think Gunn understands Superman, no matter how 'comic-accurate' the costume looks (it doesn't)

Which Superman though? The original "Champion of the oppressed" or Byrne's friend of Ronald Regan, is Clark the fake identity, is Superman, are both fake and him back in Smallville is the real him? Is it important he loses his dad, or important he's able to talk through tough times with him. All of these are popular interpretations and various writers view it differently I think with comics "Understanding" a character is more convoluted than when adapting a single book as Superman has had so many different writing teams who have their own fans who consider that the "right" way of doing him. I don't know what to think of the movie so far but I think that 

 

19 minutes ago, Max_Lego said:

This is a very good argument. Sometimes, when you don't have an adaptation that is faithful to the source material, a basic understanding of the general idea is enough. Tolkienists hated Jackson's movies but changed their minds after the Rings of Power happened. SW fans hated Prequels until the Sequels happened. Jackson's LOTR and SW Prequels aren't faithful to the originals, but they at least have some respect. That's why people like Burton's Batman movies despite the many obvious contradictions to the mythos.

 Right but I think that is kind of making my point for me, the idea of people on the internet deciding that new bad thing is the worst thing ever is just the equally common cousin of recency bias, we must consider then that "respect" is just a buzzword here and when they eventually do a Star Wars sequels sequel there will be people talking about how at least there was SOME respect for the originals there too. Most obvious example other than the prequels (which yes, had worse backlash than the sequels, while there is absolutely a lot of insane hate sent to the creatives of the new ones I don't think it compares to the amount of vitriol Lucas, Ahmed Best and Jake Lloyd got) is the Crystal Skull, that got insane backlash and now because they made a new shitter one this film that had no understanding or respect for the originals now does have "some". 

This isn't to say no criticism is valid, of course it is, I think almost all these modern Legacy Sequels we get nowadays are far more corporate and shit than the ones we got 2 decades ago but I think this moralising of shit art is weird and usually not even right.

Tolkien famously hated whenever adaptations would remove the downtime from his stories and among other moments the Jackson films cut out 17 years between Bilbo's leaving and Frodo's. He thought Helm's Deep could be cut right out of an adaptation. But he never says anything about female Dwarves having beards, he says they're mistaken for males but that's it. Despite this I heard no end of people claiming that the female Dwarves not having beards being disrespectful to Tolkien. Now to be clear I don't think that any of those changes are disrespectful, in fact I don't give a shit about any of these changes (The only one that really annoys me about the Jackson LotR trilogy is how Bilbo is straight up a different characte to the book) I don't think any lore changes really can be disrespectful unless they're changed to something actively against the original themes of work or is distasteful to the creator's past (I know it was just a marketing gimmick but even so claiming captain america was always a nazi is disrespectful to his Jewish creators who had to live through that time)

But my point with the Tolkien thing is that people rarely actually care about the original,they care about what adaptation they like most and work backwards to justify why it's disrespectful to do any other take on it. Not a single one of the live action Spiderman movies is even remotely like the Ditko version of the character but people super attached to one specific one will argues the others are disrespectful all the time.

I don't think Burton or Nolan has some "respect" for Batman, they plainly didn't really like the character and made a totally different version that worked with their interests. People loved that first Joker film and Todd Philips has a very obvious contempt for superhero shit. You even get stuff like Starship Troopers or The Flintstones comic made entirely out of hatred for the source material which are widely beloved.

And I don't think Snyder films flopped because they were different, I think the punters probably think Batman with a gun would be the coolest thing ever if in a movie they liked, I think, as you say, Nolan's joker is a stark change, probably as much as comic Superman to Snyderman. The issue is that he's simply isn't as good a filmmaker as Nolan so when he made changes they weren't done well enough to be accepted.

Respect isn't quantifiable, obviously, but I don't think many popular adaptations give a shit at what they adapt, they just are good movies and people work backwards to justify how they are respectful. Which is made notably harder as they get older and all future adaptations are inspired more by the older adaptations than the original source material. Sometimes it even goes so far around that now in the comics Peter acts like his relationship with Norman was ever like in the Raimi movies when it very much wasn't.

We're saying nothing when we talk about "respect" in the context of hyperspace rules and if someone wears the trunks or not it means nothing other than trying to cloak our opinions on media in some sorta value system that simply doesn't work.

Talking about respect makes sense when talking about things like if the people who made the characters and stories these films adapt are properly credited or compensated but that's never as important to online debate than if Spider-mans eyes should move or not

[Max_Lego]

25 minutes ago, Renny The Spaceman said:

Which Superman though? The original "Champion of the oppressed" or Byrne's friend of Ronald Regan, is Clark the fake identity, is Superman, are both fake and him back in Smallville is the real him? Is it important he loses his dad, or important he's able to talk through tough times with him. All of these are popular interpretations and various writers view it differently I think with comics "Understanding" a character is more convoluted than when adapting a single book as Superman has had so many different writing teams who have their own fans who consider that the "right" way of doing him.

Alright, Zack Snyder had the creator's right to turn Superman into a murderer who doesn't care about the lives the people he is supposed to protect and is perfectly OK of endagering them. That's something Homelander from the comic would've done, but hey, at least it's new! 

30 minutes ago, Renny The Spaceman said:

Ahmed Best and Jake Lloyd

Instead of criticising the ones responsible, they decided to unleash their hatred on the poor actors who were only doing their job. SW fans are utterly evil and inconsistent with their criticism. I personally don't mind Jake Lloyd's Anakin at all, and I like Jar Jar very much. But Hyden Christiansen's take is not how I imagine Anakin. And it's not the actor's fault. I may hate Filoni's Clone Wars, but they did one good thing - they fixed Anakin, allowing to take him much more seriously than the whiny child murderer from the Prequels. This is how Hayden portrayed him in Ahsoka - he's not a bad actor. Jared Leto's Joker was bad because how the director viewed the character, and so on... I believe actors deserve backlash for hostile or stupid behaviour only, not for their portrayal of imaginary characters. 

40 minutes ago, Renny The Spaceman said:

And I don't think Snyder films flopped because they were different, I think the punters probably think Batman with a gun would be the coolest thing ever if in a movie they liked, I think, as you say, Nolan's joker is a stark change, probably as much as comic Superman to Snyderman. The issue is that he's simply isn't as good a filmmaker as Nolan so when he made changes they weren't done well enough to be accepted.

I agree. But Snyder actually can create a good movie - with the condition of being in the iron grip of a smart producer... 

43 minutes ago, Renny The Spaceman said:

We're saying nothing when we talk about "respect" in the context of hyperspace rules and if someone wears the trunks or not it means nothing other than trying to cloak our opinions on media in some sorta value system that simply doesn't work.

Violating hyperspace rules is not even about disrespect - it's about blatant lore-breaking. SW is a universe which is supposed to have a noncontradictory canon. But it may serve as a disrespect marker, IMHO

Overall, I agree that the source material may be adapted in many different ways, without being strictly faithful to the original (but for me, there are exceptions; if I were a director in charge of adapting, I would change Zahn's Thrawn trilogy to the point that it becomes unrecognisable, while adapting Miyazaki's Nausicaa manga as faithfully as possible), but I still believe it should be done smartly, without violation of logic and common sense. And, of course, - if the creators want to profit - it should appeal to the fanbase

[psqidexslizer]

59 minutes ago, NovaBricks said:

BtAS makes sense. Probably the most beloved and recognizable iteration of the Bat-universe, LEGO has already dipped its toe into it so it can keep production costs slightly lower, and it appeals to the 30-40 demo that grew up with the show and would be most likely to throw $400+ at it. And if we're being honest, I think BtAS is about as close to comic-based as you can get. I think if you asked the average person what they envision when they think Arkham, they'd picture the castle on the hill. Same goes for like 90% of the villains. Outside of Ledger (or maybe Nicholson) Joker, I bet most people think of the BtAS design when they think of any given bat-villain. 

I think this is true for most of the BtAS designs, but not all of them. Catwoman’s gray and black outfit is unique to the show as far as I’m aware. Penguin draws pretty heavily on Burton’s design. Riddler in gray pants is also unique to the show.

I will also say the design for BtAS Arkham is kinda bland on the outside. We only ever get scenes of the interior. The exterior, it’s always just the shot of a giant gray/brown block up on a hill. If it does happen, I hope they’ll take some creative liberties and give it some additional character on the outside.

1 hour ago, CloneCommando99 said:

I would prefer it to be comic based. Greater chances of us getting a Red Robin figure.

The cowl is perfect 😈😈

 

0% is not greater than 0%. 😝