Where did DC/WB go wrong? - Part 1

[RachelDawes]

WB should do a Superman/Batman movie first and then have that lead into a JL movie

If I were them, I wouldn't even bother with a JL movie. A WF movie would probably cost less, be easier to write and make just as much money.

[roach]

If I were them, I wouldn't even bother with a JL movie. A WF movie would probably cost less, be easier to write and make just as much money.

Not doing a JL movie would be stupid.
Yes they shouldn't do it because of Avengers.
However the people that are going insane over Avengers will sell their souls to see Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman leading the rest against some major threat.

[Parker Wayne]

If I were them, I wouldn't even bother with a JL movie. A WF movie would probably cost less, be easier to write and make just as much money.

This, just because Id rather see a WF movie than JL.

[roach]

i'd rather see both

[TheComicbookKid]

Not doing a JL movie would be stupid.
Yes they shouldn't do it because of Avengers.
However the people that are going insane over Avengers will sell their souls to see Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman leading the rest against some major threat.

It's going to look like a rip. To quote Ricky Bobby, "If you ain't first, you're last."


Besides, there's more ways to imitate the continuity we see in comics than making a JLA film.

[roach]

It's going to look like a rip. To quote Ricky Bobby, "If you ain't first, you're last."


Besides, there's more ways to imitate the continuity we see in comics than making a JLA film.

so by that logic every superhero movie is a rip of the first superhero movie

Christopher Nolan made a Bat-movie after Tim Burton's and we all know how that turned out

[HighFivingMF]

Avengers was a rip of Justice League in the first place. They'd be even. :o

[TheComicbookKid]

so by that logic every superhero movie is a rip of the first superhero movie

Christopher Nolan made a Bat-movie after Tim Burton's and we all know how that turned out


Nolan waited until the Bat movies had become a joke and rebooted them.


If you're only hook is that" look, it's all of them together!" Then yeah, it's a rip for one. No one cares how influential John Carter is on every sci-fi made in the last 100 years. People will have become attached to the Avengers and the individual team members. Slapping WW and the rest onto Bats and Supes with no previous attachment is insane.

And two, you're downplaying how much effort Marvel put into building their universe by just putting the JL together. Marvel took five years to put this together.

[roach]

Nolan waited until the Bat movies had become a joke and rebooted them.


If you're only hook is that" look, it's all of them together!" Then yeah, it's a rip for one. No one cares how influential John Carter is on every sci-fi made in the last 100 years. People will have become attached to the Avengers and the individual team members. Slapping WW and the rest onto Bats and Supes with no previous attachment is insane.

And two, you're downplaying how much effort Marvel put into building their universe by just putting the JL together. Marvel took five years to put this together.

People are already attached to Superman and Batman.

and I am not downplaying anyones effort.
Dont underestimate the power of "Its all of them together." Thats pretty much Avengers marketing boiled down.

[jmc]

The elite group are those that can make 500 million or some would argue the cutoff is really 600 million.

Can Thor2 make 500 million? I think it will. Will it make 600 million? I doubt it. So depending on where one comes down on the 500/600 million divide Thor may not make the big time.

If we go with 600 million as the cutoff there are really very few super-hero films that can do that.

Bats, Spidey, Ironman and TA.

JL will be able to do it and I believe GL will be right there when it is done right.

Other than those 5 I don't think any other comic film can come close to doing 600 million.

There will always be the outlier as IronMan once was.

I think there is a sleeper second tier character waiting to make the big-time in the form of Shazaam. The jury is out on that of course.

Aside from the 5 above-metionned, all other comic franchises are second tier at best and 3rd tier at worst.

I don't think it's quite as simple as putting a dollar figure on it, you've got to consider the actual cultural impact the character has made as well. I think for a franchise to become a genuine elite film franchise one of two things needs to happen in its favour, either the franchise already has big name recognition going for it which is an automatic head start or the lead actor's performance is so good it becomes synonymous with the franchise. Iron Man is a good example of the latter as is something like Pirates of the Caribbean. Thing is with those franchises is that as soon as you take away Depp and RDJ those films are never going to be the same, you can't just replace those guys coz you're going to get totally different films, their performances elevated otherwise simple stories that captured the public's attention. Conversely with films like Thor, Cap Am, Hulk and GL nothing really stands out with the lead actors in those films other than they gave solid performances, but not memorable ones, they are easily replaceable. I was very naive in thinking you could replicated IM success with any tier 2 character but in retrospect over the last 4 years it's become much more apparent that IM was more a fluke than a formula, pure lightning in a bottle.

Characters like Batman and Spider-man I believe are at a level now where the foundations for both are strong and can survive long into the future on film, if any two comic book character can whether a bad storm I think it's very much these two. Superman still has the name recognition but needs a great film to fully cement his place, Returns wasn't awful but it wasn't what the character needed. Wolverine and to a lesser extent X-men I think can continue as long as there is effort by Fox to make the movies good, FC was a good start and hopefully the next Wolverine film is further improvement. IM I think is going to hit a hurdle once RDJ moves on, I'm not entirely ruling it out as remaining a top tier character but it's going to be very difficult for the next guy who plays Tony Stark to replace RDJ, but by then a Bond like scenario could be in place so who knows, I'm calling that one 50/50. All other characters below that though I believe will struggle to whether a bad storm if it hits them, and that's probably why WB is gun shy about characters like FL, WW and AQM and is probably why Marvel have been overly cautious with their films.

[TheComicbookKid]

People are already attached to Superman and Batman.

and I am not downplaying anyones effort.
Dont underestimate the power of "Its all of them together." Thats pretty much Avengers marketing boiled down.

Bats is in great shape. Superman, not so much, and GL is DOA with the general audience.


All of the Avengers movies have done okay and Hulk is being played by an entirely new person.

Combining all the good will towards the individual franchises is why Avengers can play the "all together" card so well.

Look what happened with X-Men FC and what happens when people become discontent with the product after Wolverine and X3.

Marvel is on an upswing and DC is flatlined/slight downswing at best. The same playbook won't work.

[metaphysician]

I think you underestimate the influence of Hemsworth and Hiddleston especially; I think they will pretty soon be as irreplaceable as Thor and Loki as RDJ is as Iron Man.

That said, one factor being overlooked: merchandising. You compare various comic book movies with Hunger Games. . . and while Hunger Games will make more money relative to its cost, I bet it won't sell anywhere near as many action figures and t-shirts and such.

[KalMart]

Hmm, I fail to see why this would make them more deserving of being made into movies before some comic book character.
We're talking away from big-time blockbusters. Essentially, non-tentpole comic material doesn't need more help getting greenlit because not as many of them have been getting shelved in comparison to good ground-up film scripts. That's part of cinema looking within to change the emphasis on big money-makers. It's like comparatively 4 out of 7 proposed smaller comic stories got made, but only 7 out of 23 original film scripts. And comics can still have a life as their original comics, it's not a given that becoming a film is their ultimate goal in life...whereas film scripts can become nothing else. The latter needs more attention. Obviously, if some graphic novel really inspires some filmmaker and they want to make it into a movie, they're still going to push for that anyway. Again, comics aren't what've been suffering more from blockbuster-itis. Look at it as improving domestic issues and local economy before foreign trade.

If we are talking abut marketing and big bucks...then absolutely go for comic names, and book names, games, cartoons, and anything else that has some brand recognition. All the more importance in a more vast and diluted entertainment landscape. But if we want to see more lesser-known, content-driven comic-based stories make it to film....they need to first improve an atmosphere that will facilitate smaller, more critical projects like that...and it has to start from within the greater number of less-commercial original film projects that have met the shelves. Hence, domestic issues first.

[jmc]

I think you underestimate the influence of Hemsworth and Hiddleston especially; I think they will pretty soon be as irreplaceable as Thor and Loki as RDJ is as Iron Man.



In what sense though? What did they really bring to the table that any decent actor couldn't have also brought?

[KalMart]

I think Thor has yet to be irreplaceable frankly.

[jmc]

I'll just clarify what I wrote above, I for some reason mistook Hiddletson for Evans (don't ask why). I will say in regards to him he was the best thing about Thor but at the same time I don't think Loki was really elevated to iconic villain status on the back of the performance. In fact I believe the villain area is where DC characters have an edge over the Marvel counterparts for film.

[chiefchirpa]

I'll just clarify what I wrote above, I for some reason mistook Hiddletson for Evans (don't ask why). I will say in regards to him he was the best thing about Thor but at the same time I don't think Loki was really elevated to iconic villain status on the back of the performance. In fact I believe the villain area is where DC characters have an edge over the Marvel counterparts for film.

Just because one single act... er character: the Joker.

Other than that, I think the Magnetos' and Loki's performances are a bracket below Ledger's Joker. WB keep bringing Lex Luthors in several Superman films but I don't think they give much interaction impact with Superman. Sinestro is wasted, as wasted as Weaving's Red Skull.

[DoomsdayApex]

Just because one single act... er character: the Joker.

Other than that, I think the Magnetos' and Loki's performances are a bracket below Ledger's Joker. WB keep bringing Lex Luthors in several Superman films but I don't think they give much interaction impact with Superman. Sinestro is wasted, as wasted as Weaving's Red Skull.

Strong's Sinestro wasn't wasted, he was underutilized. Weaving's Red Skull, on the other hand, was wasted... completely. :csad:

Liam Neeson as Ra's Al Ghul
Tom Hardy as Bane (I'm THAT confident)
Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor
Terrence Stamp as General Zod
John Hurt as High Chancellor Sulter
Tim Pigott-Smith as Peter Creedy
Matthew Goode as Adrian Veidt

[metaphysician]

Given that Superman 1 and 2 weren't actually produced by Warner Brothers studio, I think giving WB credit for them is dubious, even aside from the "30 years ago" element. Also, when you have to pad the list with non-superhero films. . .

In terms of contemporary DC film villains, you basically have Ledger as the Joker. Everyone else is no better than many of their Marvel counterparts to date.

[HighFivingMF]

Given that Superman 1 and 2 weren't actually produced by Warner Brothers studio, I think giving WB credit for them is dubious, even aside from the "30 years ago" element. Also, when you have to pad the list with non-superhero films. . .

In terms of contemporary DC film villains, you basically have Ledger as the Joker. Everyone else is no better than many of their Marvel counterparts to date.

It's not padding. They're DC movies.

Which is why I'd like to add Jude Law and Daniel Craig from Road to Perdition to the list.

[DoomsdayApex]

It's not padding. They're DC movies.

Which is why I'd like to add Jude Law and Daniel Craig from Road to Perdition to the list.

Exactly. By those standards, I guess we should also not count Ian's and Michael's Magneto considering they were both brought to us by 20th Century Fox, not Marvel Studios.

Ed Harris was also great from A History of Violence.

[The Morningstar]

Yea but if we wanna talk in terms of superheroes, they don't count.

And wasn't Jude Law's character created for the film anyway?

I'd also say Ozy was the worst thing in Watchmen. Not that the performance was bad, but because the character was completely wrong. Soon as you saw him you could tell he was a villain, or at least shady. Ozy was meant to be the golden boy, the Captain America, the Superman. That's what made his reveal at the end all the more shocking.

[DoomsdayApex]

Yea but if we wanna talk in terms of superheroes, they don't count.

Superhero-wise, yeah they don't count.

And wasn't Jude Law's character created for the film anyway?

That I'm not so certain on. I'll have to watch the film again.

I'd also say Ozy was the worst thing in Watchmen. Not that the performance was bad, but because the character was completely wrong. Soon as you saw him you could tell he was a villain, or at least shady. Ozy was meant to be the golden boy, the Captain America, the Superman. That's what made his reveal at the end all the more shocking.

I wouldn't say so. The audience viewed him as arrogant, smug, egotistical and homosexual, not shady.

[The Morningstar]

I don't think so. A lot of criticism of the film is aimed squarely at Ozy. He just came across as this overly polite, but shady schemer as soon as i saw him. Like his politeness was over compensating.

He's supposed to be like Cap or Superman. A pure golden boy, that was the intention of Moore. I love the film, but that was a clear mistake by Snyder i think.

[metaphysician]

Fair point regarding comparisons, but even if you ignore that the early Superman movies were made by a different studio. . . they were still 30 years ago. That long a time is such that you can't really draw much of anything useful from their existence, because the people at DC are different, the people at all the movie studios are different, the audience is different. . . there is basically no continuity.

Whereas, by contrast, there is a common creative cadre at Marvel Studios that bears continuity from Iron Man to the present. There's also a similar creative cadre at WB surrounding Chris Nolan. Likewise at Sony and Fox, to varying extents ( though I suspect there is very little of it, re: the Spider-man franchise by now ). Even in those cases, though, at least your talking about an audience that is a lot more similar to the one of now, then the audience of 1979.

[FlashThompson]

I am almost positive that Justice League would fail.

DC is too complicated and their heroes are over-powered except for a few like Batman and.....???

Marvel has heroes that people can relate to (Spiderman & some of the X-Men students), heores that seem realistic for a superhero (Ironman & Hulk), and since they are the first to do a lot of firsts in the SuperHero Movie Genre, DC will look like they are tryna copy Marvel.

I can't see a Justice League movie being a well produced movie.

Martian ManHunter has so many abilities that why would he have to team up with Flash or Wonder Woman to help him out when he already has flight, strength and enhanced speed? Just Martian ManHunter & Superman teaming up would be powerful enough to protect Earth.

Batman could be interesting but these guys are over-powered and don't balance out the team like the Avengers to make it sort-of-believable.

Example: The Avengers balanced each other out by having the Cap lead the team through the henchmen towards the main antagonist, Hulk their for strength, IronMan for wits, technology, and money to fund the team, Thor to battle gods like Loki, Hawkeye & Black Widow for the henchmen, Nick Fury to direct the whole team, etc...

[HighFivingMF]

Because there's never been a story with the Justice League before?

[FlashThompson]

Because there's never been a story with the Justice League before?

I think you mean to say "because there's never been a MOVIE with the Justic League before?".

Well, I really wish the best of luck to WB for these overpowered heroes all in one movie.

[HighFivingMF]

Marvel Marvel Marvel Marvel Marvel Marvel Marvel Marvel Marvel Marvel Marvel Marvel Marvel Marvel Marvel Marvel Marvel Marvel Marvel Marvel

Fair enough.

[DoomsdayApex]

Yep. That's basically all I took from that counter-response.

[KalMart]

:woot:

[Anubis]

Stop feeding the troll boys. :o

[FlashThompson]

Stop feeding the troll boys. :o

Damn, what a nice comeback. That comeback really makes me believe that DC movies are actually a threat to Marvel movies brah; thanks for opening my eyes.

[metaphysician]

Its not the power levels that are the problem, IMO. Its the very distinct mythoi. Every major DC hero tends to have his own city, his own supporting cast, his own rogues gallery, and his own set of themes. . . all with scarcely any reference to anyone else, or any significant common elements.

Is this necessarily a bad thing? No. But it does provide an extra obstacle to doing a good team movie. I wouldn't worry about it so much, mind, except its one obstacle of what feels like dozens.

[FlashThompson]

Yeah like since they are not having a shared universe they shouldn't do a Justice League Movie for the next 5 years.

They should just focus on trying to get other heroes to atleast come close to match up to the epicness of the Dark Knight.

[Anubis]

Damn, what a nice comeback. That comeback really makes me believe that DC movies are actually a threat to Marvel movies brah; thanks for opening my eyes.

No, the point is, just looking at your posts, you're a troll. You're baiting people. You wont be here long anyway. I mean, you're so damn obvious about. :funny:

Its not the power levels that are the problem, IMO. Its the very distinct mythoi. Every major DC hero tends to have his own city, his own supporting cast, his own rogues gallery, and his own set of themes. . . all with scarcely any reference to anyone else, or any significant common elements.

Is this necessarily a bad thing? No. But it does provide an extra obstacle to doing a good team movie. I wouldn't worry about it so much, mind, except its one obstacle of what feels like dozens.

Oh, you mean like.....all those Marvel Heroes? I mean, Stark's got Pepper and Happy and hangs out in L.A. mostly. Hulk's Got Betty and Thunderbolt Ross and tends to stick to the remote regions of the planet. Thor's got Jane and Kat Dennings boobs in Oklahoma plus that summer house in Asgard. They have individual supporting casts. They live in different cities, countries....dimensional planes of existence. :o

How exactly is that any different from, say Batman and Alfred in Gotham? Or Supes and Lois, Jimmy, and Perry in Metropolis?

I mean, are you people actually aware that these characters have lived in the same universe, interacted, teamed up, and actually had teams called the Justice League, the Justice Society, hell, even Batman and the Outsiders, for like, 80 some odd years?

To say that they can't interact is like.....I mean.....I honestly don't understand the thought process behind these words that you people are typing. :confused: You wanna connect em in movies, then you....connect them. Like say, having a singular character show up in all the movies? You know, building towards a connected film.........Wow, I must be a genius. That whole thing is unheard of...oh wait, I believe that's exactly what they did with the Avengers.

Hmmm, point is, WTFM? Seriously? I mean he's a troll. He's just trying to get a rise outta people, but you seem like a bright fella. You are aware that Marvel. DC. There's no difference. No one company is any more better equipped to handle a shared universe than the other. Avengers is just as "overpowered" (Which is a whole other boos**t thing I don't feel like getting into.) as the League. Why must everybody go all Mac vs PC with everything? As long as you can look at porn and download illegal music it doesn't matter.

[roach]

No, the point is, just looking at your posts, you're a troll. You're baiting people. You wont be here long anyway. I mean, you're so damn obvious about. :funny:



Oh, you mean like.....all those Marvel Heroes? I mean, Stark's got Pepper and Happy and hangs out in L.A. mostly. Hulk's Got Betty and Thunderbolt Ross and tends to stick to the remote regions of the planet. Thor's got Jane and Kat Dennings boobs in Oklahoma plus that summer house in Asgard. They have individual supporting casts. They live in different cities, countries....dimensional planes of existence. :o

How exactly is that any different from, say Batman and Alfred in Gotham? Or Supes and Lois, Jimmy, and Perry in Metropolis?

I mean, are you people actually aware that these characters have lived in the same universe, interacted, teamed up, and actually had teams called the Justice League, the Justice Society, hell, even Batman and the Outsiders, for like, 80 some odd years?

To say that they can't interact is like.....I mean.....I honestly don't understand the thought process behind these words that you people are typing. :confused: You wanna connect em in movies, then you....connect them. Like say, having a singular character show up in all the movies? You know, building towards a connected film.........Wow, I must be a genius. That whole thing is unheard of...oh wait, I believe that's exactly what they did with the Avengers.

Hmmm, point is, WTFM? Seriously? I mean he's a troll. He's just trying to get a rise outta people, but you seem like a bright fella. You are aware that Marvel. DC. There's no difference. No one company is any more better equipped to handle a shared universe than the other. Avengers is just as "overpowered" (Which is a whole other boos**t thing I don't feel like getting into.) as the League. Why must everybody go all Mac vs PC with everything? As long as you can look at porn and download illegal music it doesn't matter.

I pledge myself to your teachings. To the ways of the Sith.

[DoomsdayApex]

Oh, you mean like.....all those Marvel Heroes? I mean, Stark's got Pepper and Happy and hangs out in L.A. mostly. Hulk's Got Betty and Thunderbolt Ross and tends to stick to the remote regions of the planet. Thor's got Jane and Kat Dennings boobs in Oklahoma plus that summer house in Asgard. They have individual supporting casts. They live in different cities, countries....dimensional planes of existence. :o

How exactly is that any different from, say Batman and Alfred in Gotham? Or Supes and Lois, Jimmy, and Perry in Metropolis?

I mean, are you people actually aware that these characters have lived in the same universe, interacted, teamed up, and actually had teams called the Justice League, the Justice Society, hell, even Batman and the Outsiders, for like, 80 some odd years?

To say that they can't interact is like.....I mean.....I honestly don't understand the thought process behind these words that you people are typing. :confused: You wanna connect em in movies, then you....connect them. Like say, having a singular character show up in all the movies? You know, building towards a connected film.........Wow, I must be a genius. That whole thing is unheard of...oh wait, I believe that's exactly what they did with the Avengers.

Hmmm, point is, WTFM? Seriously? I mean he's a troll. He's just trying to get a rise outta people, but you seem like a bright fella. You are aware that Marvel. DC. There's no difference. No one company is any more better equipped to handle a shared universe than the other. Avengers is just as "overpowered" (Which is a whole other boos**t thing I don't feel like getting into.) as the League. Why must everybody go all Mac vs PC with everything? As long as you can look at porn and download illegal music it doesn't matter.

:applaud:

[KRIM]

I genuinely laughed at those last two sentences. I could not have predicted that ending.

[The Morningstar]

Anubis is the master at irreverent comments that actually have a whole deeper meaning. And he's absolutely right.

People who say things like "Oh the JL is overpowered! Oh Superman is overpowered! Oh Thor is overpowered!" have a distinct lack of imagination and have no place reading comics about superheroes, which are all about imagination.

[Lone]

LOL...thanks for providing some levity to this thread, FlashThompson.:pal::pal:

[Octoberist]

I'm a fair guy and yes, Flash has been trolling because he's actively looking for a reaction due to self-entitlement and seemly unaware self-righteousness.

[Lone]

I'm a fair guy and yes, Flash has been trolling because he's actively looking for a reaction due to self-entitlement and seemly unaware self-righteousness.

I thought FlashTrollson was in here looking to start an e-penis measuring contest.

[Octoberist]

And you can always tell a banned user when you see one; especially when you see a brand new member who is outspoken. A little outspoken and comfortable, as if he/she has been posting here before.

[metaphysician]

Marvel heroes have their own mythoi, yes. However, they tend to have a lot more common elements, too: if nothing else, most Marvel comics end up set partially or wholly in New York City. They have their own rogue's galleries, but there is often a lot of ambiguity over who goes with who, as they trade and share villains a lot more than Marvel. There are organizations like SHIELD that are major supporting elements of the setting that show up everywhere. The concept of "calling in support" gets used a lot more, the best example being how absolutely everybody has at least one comic storyline where they go to Dr Strange for help with something mystical.

Does this preexisting base mean the movie writers had no work to do? No, not at all. However, it gives them a very strong starting point for building a combined *movie* setting, because the *comic* setting itself is very well combined and has been for decades. DC has some of these elements, but generally to a much lesser extent: different cities, very little villain sharing, relatively few team-ups and crossovers ( that stretch beyond a character's own supporting cast ) outside of actual team comics.

Again, I'm not saying a movie can't be done. I'm saying this is one more obstacle to doing a *good* JLA movie. And I'd appreciate it if retorts don't spend all their time babbling about power levels, seeing as I'm not and haven't ever been talking about power levels.

[C. Lee]

Damn, what a nice comeback. That comeback really makes me believe that DC movies are actually a threat to Marvel movies brah; thanks for opening my eyes.

Thanks for opening my eyes to another troll....bye bye troll......

[Cain]

Oh, you mean like.....all those Marvel Heroes? I mean, Stark's got Pepper and Happy and hangs out in L.A. mostly. Hulk's Got Betty and Thunderbolt Ross and tends to stick to the remote regions of the planet. Thor's got Jane and Kat Dennings boobs in Oklahoma plus that summer house in Asgard. They have individual supporting casts. They live in different cities, countries....dimensional planes of existence. :o

How exactly is that any different from, say Batman and Alfred in Gotham? Or Supes and Lois, Jimmy, and Perry in Metropolis?

I mean, are you people actually aware that these characters have lived in the same universe, interacted, teamed up, and actually had teams called the Justice League, the Justice Society, hell, even Batman and the Outsiders, for like, 80 some odd years?

To say that they can't interact is like.....I mean.....I honestly don't understand the thought process behind these words that you people are typing. :confused: You wanna connect em in movies, then you....connect them. Like say, having a singular character show up in all the movies? You know, building towards a connected film.........Wow, I must be a genius. That whole thing is unheard of...oh wait, I believe that's exactly what they did with the Avengers.

Hmmm, point is, WTFM? Seriously? I mean he's a troll. He's just trying to get a rise outta people, but you seem like a bright fella. You are aware that Marvel. DC. There's no difference. No one company is any more better equipped to handle a shared universe than the other. Avengers is just as "overpowered" (Which is a whole other boos**t thing I don't feel like getting into.) as the League. Why must everybody go all Mac vs PC with everything? As long as you can look at porn and download illegal music it doesn't matter.

:lmao: :up:

[The Guard]

WATCHMEN's reveal that Veidt is behind everything really shouldn't be all that shocking if you've been paying attention to the graphic novel. He's an elitist ******* right from the start. He has a reason to hate The Comedian. He has the resources to pull it off. By villains standards, its pretty obvious. By the time Nite Owl and Rorschach investigate Karnak, simply based on the tone of the story, the fact that Veidt is behind everything (before they ever find out) should be obvious to a careful reader.

Whether audiences suspected Veidt as behind it all isn't really the point. More to the point is the fact that he does not fit the mold of the traditional villain. That his actions, as horrible as they are, may have saved the world. They weren't exactly trying to hide the fact that he was a villain in the film, nor should they have, really. He was an 80's businessman and at odds with the other heroes on some level. Of course he is the villain. They were hiding the nature of his villainy. Turning the expectations audiences have on their head.

And the JLA members having distinct mythologies, locations and supporting cast to weave together is a challenge, but it's also a major strength. The Avengers are fighting in New York. The JLA can choose from Gotham, Metropolis, Central City/Keystone City, Coast City, Colorado, Themyscira, or Mars. The way Marvel has weaved together the Avengers films has been fun, and somewhat satisfying, but not exactly complex. Very point to point, with a few cameos and connections from film to film. A JLA film wouldn't be any more or less difficult to conceive and write. It might even be easier since there doesn't need to be as much buildup to bringing unknown heroes together. WB could easily make a JLA film and then spin off solo films if its massively successful.

[roach]

I dont understand why Marvel fanbois don't think anyone else can do a joined universe. To be honest Marvel wasn't the first...or the first with a planned universe...hell Kevin Smith did it with all his Viewaskew movies

[The Morningstar]

It's a bit different with little indie movies and big summer blockbusters. The View Askew movies weren't really interconnected story lines either, they just took place in the same universe and had cameos from other characters from other movies.

I do love Kevin Smith's earlier work though.

[metaphysician]

I think DC *could* do a joint universe, I just don't think they've demonstrated the interest or competency to actually *succeed* at it as of yet.

Or: lets wait and see if Man of Steel is good. If they can do a decent Superman movie, then there's hope. Provided, of course, they don't decide to do something really stupid, like an immediate JLA movie that doesn't have continuity with any other movies at all.

[roach]

http://www.worldofsuperheroes.com/film-tv/top-warner-bros-executive-jeff-robinov-talks-justice-league-movie-and-reinventing-batman-after-the-dark-knight-rises/

"Robinov has said that a new Justice League script ‘is’ in the works. Also being written for Warner are scripts featuring the Flash and Wonder Woman."

[Tobias]

I think DC *could* do a joint universe, I just don't think they've demonstrated the interest or competency to actually *succeed* at it as of yet.

Or: lets wait and see if Man of Steel is good. If they can do a decent Superman movie, then there's hope. Provided, of course, they don't decide to do something really stupid, like an immediate JLA movie that doesn't have continuity with any other movies at all.

Competency is a worry given how SR and GL turned out.

WB will take their time on JL IMO. In part I think because WB won't move on JL until after Batman is relanched. I think JL is 6 or 7 years away.

The better TA does the more WB is going to have to spend on JL. This film is going to be, if not the most expensive, then near the most expensive WB has done.

WB can't go with unknowns as actors as was the case with JL Mortal.

IMO they need established middle tier actors as Bale was leading into Batman.

I think casting will be huge and itself will take a long, long time. The actors need a great chemistry with each other. Again, WB needs to take time in developeing JL.

Finally, I wish JL could be held to just 4 heros - won't happen. But at the most it should be restricted to 5. Batman will be the focus of JL as WB will use his uber-success to launch JL. So Bats will get a fair amount of screentime and the only way to counter that is to pare down the number of other heros in the film to make sure them don't come off as little more than cameos.

Screentime is a big issue and JL has to balance itself to allow developemnt of the new to the big-screen heros it will most assuredly be featuring.

It's a difficult project but the potential reward for WB is huge.

[conan69]

I have to side with Morningstar here.

WB is notorious for interferring with their comic book properties. I really compare WB to Fox and look at their comic book output - Elektra, 2 pathetic Fantastic Four films, Daredevil, REALLY bad X-Men decisions.

When they back off, we get a Batman Begins and TDK.

I wanted to like GL. I was excited to see it, but the reviews were SO bad, I put it off.

WB should make a DCU creative team. Guys who know and understand these characters, can pitch ideas, oversee DC projects, and work on good scripts that will interest creative filmmakers.

[Cain]

I have to side with Morningstar here.

WB is notorious for interferring with their comic book properties. I really compare WB to Fox and look at their comic book output - Elektra, 2 pathetic Fantastic Four films, Daredevil, REALLY bad X-Men decisions.

When they back off, we get a Batman Begins and TDK.

I wanted to like GL. I was excited to see it, but the reviews were SO bad, I put it off.

WB should make a DCU creative team. Guys who know and understand these characters, can pitch ideas, oversee DC projects, and work on good scripts that will interest creative filmmakers.

In a perfect world they'd realize just how valuable Dini, Timm, Alan Burnett and James Tucker have been to them in introducing these characters to new generations through fresh in execution yet familiar in spirit media adaptations (animated shows, video games, comics etc.) and just hire them to be in charge of the live action stuff too.

[conan69]

^ Exactly.

Guys like that are a great place to start.

[Cain]

http://www.worldofsuperheroes.com/film-tv/top-warner-bros-executive-jeff-robinov-talks-justice-league-movie-and-reinventing-batman-after-the-dark-knight-rises/

"Robinov has said that a new Justice League script ‘is’ in the works. Also being written for Warner are scripts featuring the Flash and Wonder Woman."

Robinov always says this lol.

[Docker2.0]

I have to side with Morningstar here.

WB is notorious for interferring with their comic book properties. I really compare WB to Fox and look at their comic book output - Elektra, 2 pathetic Fantastic Four films, Daredevil, REALLY bad X-Men decisions.

When they back off, we get a Batman Begins and TDK.

I wanted to like GL. I was excited to see it, but the reviews were SO bad, I put it off.

WB should make a DCU creative team. Guys who know and understand these characters, can pitch ideas, oversee DC projects, and work on good scripts that will interest creative filmmakers.
I think WB let Singer have his way with Superman and we got SR. I think they got to involved with GL and look what we got. I think it depends on who's involved. Campbell wasn't really to much into comics. Singer just got lost with SR. Nolan was perfect to a degree with TDK but for the entire DCU? I just don't see it. I think if they get a geek like Whedon or Tim who did the DCAU, that would be a start. Someone who knows comics, knows what fanboys want and yet know how to deliver the goods. It's a hard trifecta but it's right in front of their faces, hidden in plain sight but the blind bastichs can't see it!! :argh:

[conan69]

Yea I think Singer made too many mistakes, and prob was just a bad match with Superman. He did some things right, but alot wrong.
I think Singers works better with daker more complex material. The SR script was a bit too familiar and dumbed down.

I do appreciate he tried to do some new things with the character, but Superman will always be about hope, not dark and brooding.
Synders version isnt getting me excited either. Theres a whole universe out there - Brainiac, Darkseid, Metallo, and we're getting Luthor, Zod, origin story again.Oh, and dark and brooding Superman ala Batman influences. Superman doesnt have Batmans dark psychology.

sigh.


I still prefer Superman Returns over Green Lantern and all of Fox Superhero films with the exception of Xmen2 and First Class.

[Cain]

Yeah Man of Steel is the last time to show and prove. I like Snyder actually cause I've enjoyed his movies and Cavill was the guy I wanted to see as Supes etc. but at the end of the day it could all crash & burn.

This is the last chance I'll give them; exception being Batman movies which I'll watch by proxy cause it's my favorite character. I don't think I'll even see a Flash movie if MOS doesn't stack up and I've wanted a Flash movie for ages. If it doesn't come through I'm find with just going to Marvel Studios for a non-Batman superhero movie fix. Which sucks cause I'm actually more of a DC fan but at least they have a good vision that's been executed in an entertaining manner so far.

Superman isn't dark and broody. I hope Goyer and Nolan understand the fundamentals like they did Batman and push a Superman movie as far as it could be pushed creatively.

There's still a possibility that they don't get it. Time will tell but I really hope this one gets it otherwise if WB as a stuido can't get Superman right I doubt they could any other heroes.

[DoomsdayApex]

Yea I think Singer made too many mistakes, and prob was just a bad match with Superman. He did some things right, but alot wrong.
I think Singers works better with daker more complex material. The SR script was a bit too familiar and dumbed down.

I do appreciate he tried to do some new things with the character, but Superman will always be about hope, not dark and brooding.
Synders version isnt getting me excited either. Theres a whole universe out there - Brainiac, Darkseid, Metallo, and we're getting Luthor, Zod, origin story again.Oh, and dark and brooding Superman ala Batman influences. Superman doesnt have Batmans dark psychology.

sigh.


I still prefer Superman Returns over Green Lantern and all of Fox Superhero films with the exception of Xmen2 and First Class.

Has Luthor been confirmed? I don't remember anything about Lex Luthor being featured.

Eh, I'm extremely confident in Snyder's/Nolan's/Goyer's Man of Steel. It's all about the approach, and Singer picked the wrong one for the modern audience. I doubt the trio chose a similar route for their Superman.

Edgy does not equal Dark and Brooding.

If MoS succeeds, I am expecting Brainiac, Darkseid or Doomsday. Zod, though, was the perfect villain for an origin film.

[Tobias]

Yeah Man of Steel is the last time to show and prove. I like Snyder actually cause I've enjoyed his movies and Cavill was the guy I wanted to see as Supes etc. but at the end of the day it could all crash & burn.

This is the last chance I'll give them; exception being Batman movies which I'll watch by proxy cause it's my favorite character. I don't think I'll even see a Flash movie if MOS doesn't stack up and I've wanted a Flash movie for ages. If it doesn't come through I'm find with just going to Marvel Studios for a non-Batman superhero movie fix. Which sucks cause I'm actually more of a DC fan but at least they have a good vision that's been executed in an entertaining manner so far.

Superman isn't dark and broody. I hope Goyer and Nolan understand the fundamentals like they did Batman and push a Superman movie as far as it could be pushed creatively.

There's still a possibility that they don't get it. Time will tell but I really hope this one gets it otherwise if WB as a stuido can't get Superman right I doubt they could any other heroes.

ITD about Cavill - he was a default choice because of the forced time-frame to get the movie going. Bad choice IMO though I hope he proves m wrong.

When MOS crashes next year I don't think WB will use it as a gauge. It's a film they didn't want to make but were forced to. Superman is not on WB's radar IMO. I suspect they have discounted MOS already.

My worry is GL. Now that is a franchise WB had high hopes in and - well the film was a huge disappointment.

WB will continue to make DC films, but probably at a snail's pace.

All they have now is Batman and probably JL building off of Batman.

IMHO however, DC films are not on WB's priority list. And never will be.

Marvel Studios is a totally different game.

[jmc]

I'd like WB to listen to pitches from directors passionate about the properties, it's no good setting up some internal structure within DC Entertainment to do it, find directors who actually want to make the movies and let things evolve organically, once you do that don't force things to happen, don't leave things out for future movies, just make the best damn movie here and now. Part of where GL went wrong was WB were so sure of themselves they planted seeds for future GL movies. I hate that mentality, don't plant seeds, don't leave things out, make the best effing movie first and foremost, deal with sequels when they come around.

[conan69]

Has Luthor been confirmed? I don't remember anything about Lex Luthor being featured.Pulling string in the background, but not the main adversary I thought. Which IS the right way to go, but I really want them to go somewhere else. Something bold and different.

I hate to be downbeat, but have to say, the idea of going back to Krypton, Jor-El... its not doing it for me.

Darkseid, Metallo, Brainiac <--- Now Im interested.

[Tobias]

Pulling string in the background, but not the main adversary I thought. Which IS the right way to go, but I really want them to go somewhere else. Something bold and different.

I hate to be downbeat, but have to say, the idea of going back to Krypton, Jor-El... its not doing it for me.

Darkseid, Metallo, Brainiac <--- Now Im interested.

You have every reason to be downbeat.

WB did this on the "cheap". ordered to make a film they went with the least expensive storyline. Not that MOS is going to cost them little. It's likley to be 175 million or more.

However, to do the "right kind" of film would have cost way north of 200 million. Why should WB invest that kind of money into a film they didn't want.

To do the story that should have been done, if WB wanted to relaunch the franchise, which clearly they didn't, you would need to have gone with Darkseid or Brainiac. Something bold as you say.

But it is what it is. MOS is a knock-off. The bigger threat to future WB DC films is the poor performane of GL last year. That is what scares me.

I don't and won't blame WB for MOS.

[DoomsdayApex]

Tobias, you keep downplaying the film on absolutely nothing. Iron Man was a mess from the start (it had a unfinished script) and yet still Iron Man came out on top as a smashing success.

I sure hope you hold onto your opinions when the film comes out, and not flip flop.

[conan69]

Iron Man was in developmental hell forever. I remember reading about that back in the mid 90s on Coronas Coming Attractions website.

But once JonF came onto the scene, with a definitive vision of the movie, a supportive studio and creative team - it moved along pretty well.

[CConn]

Yeah, I think that's the problem with all of DC's movies...so far we've heard of no one having any definitive or resolute vision for any DC movie. Except for Nolan. And look how awesome that turned out.

From everything we've heard, JL, WW, GL, and the little they've done with Flash has been with second rate writers and directors with a lack of a pure, clean creative vision. And that's probably a big reason why they haven't gotten made. And for good reason.

[Parker Wayne]

I'd like WB to listen to pitches from directors passionate about the properties, it's no good setting up some internal structure within DC Entertainment to do it, find directors who actually want to make the movies and let things evolve organically, once you do that don't force things to happen, don't leave things out for future movies, just make the best damn movie here and now. Part of where GL went wrong was WB were so sure of themselves they planted seeds for future GL movies. I hate that mentality, don't plant seeds, don't leave things out, make the best effing movie first and foremost, deal with sequels when they come around.

I agree, but at the same time passion isn't everything, as Superman returns had shown.

[Parker Wayne]

Yeah, I think that's the problem with all of DC's movies...so far we've heard of no one having any definitive or resolute vision for any DC movie. Except for Nolan. And look how awesome that turned out.

From everything we've heard, JL, WW, GL, and the little they've done with Flash has been with second rate writers and directors with a lack of a pure, clean creative vision. And that's probably a big reason why they haven't gotten made. And for good reason.

Once again, I bring up SR. That did have a definitive vision.

And I wouldn't call Martin Campbell second-rate. He was just the wrong type of director for GL.

[CConn]

But that just reinforces my point. Singer DID have a very definitive vision for SR, and WB supported him. It's a shame it was met with lukewarm reaction, but that's really another matter entirely; the important aspect is that WB HAS supported talented directors with a strong creative visions. And that's always a good thing. Even when it doesn't work out too well - like in SR - you'll still end up with a better movie than the FFs and GRs of the world.

No, Campbell's not second rate. But it was never HIS projective. He was chosen to bring someone else's script and someone else's vision to the screen...and that was the first misstep for GL. Even if he's the wrong type of director, I'd suspect it would've been a much better movie if it was his idea, tailored to his directorial style.

[conan69]

And I wouldn't call Martin Campbell second-rate. He was just the wrong type of director for GL.

Wasnt studio interference the problem here too though. I remember seeing quotes from Martin that the final product of GL being very different from the movie he wanted to make.

[Tobias]

But that just reinforces my point. Singer DID have a very definitive vision for SR, and WB supported him. It's a shame it was met with lukewarm reaction,

I have to disagree.

Singer did not have a vision - he only had an interpretation of a vision - Donner's vision.

In places a slavishly embarrassing copy of what had been done much better almost 30 years earlier. SR was way too often derivative of what had come before and, as such, inferior to the original. IMO.

Would that Singer had had a vision. Things might have turned out a lot different.

What worked in 1978 was never going to work again in 2006. Singer tried to fit a square peg into a round hole. It was doomed from the get-go IMO.



-

[Heretic]

For some reason, the movie studios think that comic characters have origins, and then their adventures stop.

I simply do not need to see Superman or Batman's origin ever again, and anyone on earth who doesn't already know Batman and Superman's origins will likely not bother to see their movies anyway. Heck, WB is already planning to reboot Batman for NO reason at all. They could simply hire a new director and actor and make a new movie about Batman fighting the Penguin or something, without ever acknowledging, but still respecting the existence of, the previous films. Why can't Man of Steel just have a new threat come to earth that Superman has to fight. I don't care about what Lois and her new husband are doing...they hardly matter when Darkseid is destroying the entire planet.

[conan69]

WB isnt going to reboot Batman, they said reinvent.

The character will most likely continue already established and doing his thing in Gotham.

[Parker Wayne]

But that just reinforces my point. Singer DID have a very definitive vision for SR, and WB supported him. It's a shame it was met with lukewarm reaction, but that's really another matter entirely; the important aspect is that WB HAS supported talented directors with a strong creative visions. And that's always a good thing. Even when it doesn't work out too well - like in SR - you'll still end up with a better movie than the FFs and GRs of the world.

No, Campbell's not second rate. But it was never HIS projective. He was chosen to bring someone else's script and someone else's vision to the screen...and that was the first misstep for GL. Even if he's the wrong type of director, I'd suspect it would've been a much better movie if it was his idea, tailored to his directorial style.

I completely agree to everything, though a director doesn't have to write his own script to make a good movie, and they usually do bring someone else's vision to screen. I do understand what you're saying though. It's much harder to do so in Hollywood.

[Octoberist]

The problem with Campbell, as solid as he is, he is a journeyman director. A very successful journeyman director when he given the right movie. Otherwise, besides Bond, his resume is very..uneven.

[DoomsdayApex]

The problem with Campbell, as solid as he is, he is a journeyman director. A very successful journeyman director when he given the right movie. Otherwise, besides Bond, his resume is very..uneven.

That's virtually my opinion of him. He's always been hit or miss with me.

[The Guard]

Bah.

[The Guard]

Singer did not have a vision - he only had an interpretation of a vision - Donner's vision.

Giving Superman a child, having Lois being engaged to Richard with a child, Superman leaving Earth and returning years later, dealing with alienation...these things are part of a vision. This is not Donner's vision. It is Singer's. He used elements of Donner's vision. Historically popular elements like the crystalline tech/Fortress of Solitude, Jor-El's role in Superman's mission, and some character elements. Some of these, things that have made it into the comics over the years. But these were more or less background elements in the film. The lion's share of SUPERMAN RETURNS was Singer's vision and story.

[Duke]

Giving Superman a child, having Lois being engaged to Richard with a child, Superman leaving Earth and returning years later, dealing with alienation...these things are part of a vision. This is not Donner's vision. It is Singer's. He used elements of Donner's vision. Historically popular elements like the crystalline tech/Fortress of Solitude, Jor-El's role in Superman's mission, and some character elements. Some of these, things that have made it into the comics over the years. But these were more or less background elements in the film. The lion's share of SUPERMAN RETURNS was Singer's vision and story.


I have to agree with The Guard here on this. I really hated the fact that Superman had a child with Lois, because that would have defeated the whole mythos of Kal El being the sole survivor of Krypton (Supergirl being the exception). Plus the fact Lois got engaged with another guy & lack of action in the movie or slow pacing.

[Cain]

I have to agree with The Guard here on this. I really hated the fact that Superman had a child with Lois, because that would have defeated the whole mythos of Kal El being the sole survivor of Krypton (Supergirl being the exception). Plus the fact Lois got engaged with another guy & lack of action in the movie or slow pacing.

Yeah I didn't like that stuff either that and the fact that I liked Richard White a lot more than Supes in the end :dry:

To say that it wasn't Singer's vision though is crazy. It most definitely was the vision that he was always passionate about bringing to the world if he got a crack at a Superman movie. For better or worse.

Speaking of directors that weren't secondary and had a vision. I'd say George Miller is far from a second rate director and had a concrete vision for JLA (which has been impossible to find otherwise). It's a shame all the things that happened (writers strike, overbudget) that derailed that project.

The man was really passionate about returning to a full length live action format with a JL movie. Seemed even more especially excited to make an all new action movie so many years after Thunderdome and this time with mythological archetypes. In the end it just wasn't meant to be.

[roach]

I have to agree with The Guard here on this. I really hated the fact that Superman had a child with Lois, because that would have defeated the whole mythos of Kal El being the sole survivor of Krypton (Supergirl being the exception). Plus the fact Lois got engaged with another guy & lack of action in the movie or slow pacing.

Superman having a child doesn't defeat the mythos of Superman being the last survivor of Krypton. The boy is not a survivor of krypton...at best is a half kryptonian/half human.
You may have survived Titanic but having kids doesn't negate that

[third3ye]

To answer where WB went wrong with not having a JLA shared universe in play, this is simply how WB works and is a double-edged word for them. They run into film concepts guns blazing and typically without a very well thought-out process. The upside is that they are first to market and don't play the bureaucracy game that slows down production, but the downside is that they rush often and don't map out a long-term plan very effectively unless the written content is already laid out for them (i.e. Harry Potter).

[Duke]

Superman having a child doesn't defeat the mythos of Superman being the last survivor of Krypton. The boy is not a survivor of krypton...at best is a half kryptonian/half human.
You may have survived Titanic but having kids doesn't negate that


I'm sorry, but I kindly disagree. If there were other Kryptonians that survived the explosion of the planet or if Superman had any offspring, then what would be the point??? I just prefer Superman as a stand alone hero.

[metaphysician]

. . .that still makes no sense. Clark Kent having kids some day has no bearing on his origin. If anything, its a proper thematic counterpoint, going from last scion to progenitor of the new.

Anyway, as far as Superman Returns goes, I think part of the problem was the blending of visions: Donner's version and Singer's version were both present, but they weren't necessarily compatible.

[The Guard]

To answer where WB went wrong with not having a JLA shared universe in play, this is simply how WB works and is a double-edged word for them. They run into film concepts guns blazing and typically without a very well thought-out process.

What are you basing this on, superherowise?

[third3ye]

What are you basing this on, superherowise?

Not superhero specific, simply an industry observation of WB's production style and what they have (and haven't) accomplished with their DC franchise rights. I work for one of the competing studios and one of my best friends works at WB corporate and works directly with DC Entertainment. That's all I gotta say about the matter, take it for what it's worth but I'm not here to prove credibility beyond that.

[Parker Wayne]

Them not having a shared universe doesn't mean the standalone movies will be more successful, though I'm inclined to believe the second part of going in guns blazing as it looked like it with Green Lantern.

[redfirebird2008]

Them not having a shared universe doesn't mean the standalone movies will be more successful, though I'm inclined to believe the second part of going in guns blazing as it looked like it with Green Lantern.

Right. Guns blazing with blanks in the chamber. :hehe:

[Mondragon]

Schedule of green-light in production plans:

Marvel
Iron Man 3 5/3/13
The Wolverine 7/26/13
Thor 2 11/15/13
Captain America 2 4/4/14
Amazing Spider-man 2 5/2/14
Marvel Untitled 5/16/14
X-men First Class 2 (no date confirmed yet)

DC
Man of Steel 6/14/13

[Cain]

Schedule of green-light in production plans:

Marvel
Iron Man 3 5/3/13
The Wolverine 7/26/13
Thor 2 11/15/13
Captain America 2 4/4/14
Amazing Spider-man 2 5/2/14
Marvel Untitled 5/16/14
X-men First Class 2 (no date confirmed yet)

DC
Man of Steel 6/14/13

I see your point here but you're definitely over compensating in trying to prove it by including movies that aren't even being made BY Marvel Studios at all. Only 4 of those are valid pieces of evidence. I mean if that's the case you may as well include RED 2 there with MOS when it comes to DC in 2013.

[Hotwire]

I see your point here but you're definitely over compensating in trying to prove it by including movies that aren't even being made BY Marvel Studios at all. Only 4 of those are valid pieces of evidence. I mean if that's the case you may as well include RED 2 there with MOS when it comes to DC in 2013.
The point was, even though Marvel Studios isn't making all the movies, Marvel is getting a ton of exposure. Thus, they stay relevant. DC, however, keeps fading away.

[Mr. Immortal]

There's two reasons MCU films are so successful. (These are purely in terms of viewing experience, not box office numbers.)

1) They're tried and true story templates that have resonated with people time and time again. They focus on being great stories first, and great superhero stories second. (For the most part they've hit both of those out of the park each time.)

2) They approach the casual fan with tons of care, being sure not to alienate anyone and waste time.

The two reasons the MCU is successful are the same reasons a lot of DC movies have been spectacular failures.

The second Green Lantern opened up with an extended space sequence talking about the lore of the universe and Corps, I knew the movie had no chance. It's such an abysmal, insulting way to open a movie. Educating your audience point black at the start of the movie can work, but it has to be done so flawlessly and with subtlety that I'm shocked they even attempted it.

Compare that to Thor, which opens with a man getting decked by a truck in the middle of nowhere. And Cap, which opens with a shield being found frozen in the middle of the arctic. These are scenarios that a person can understand immediately. Instead of trying to educate the audience point blank they force the audience to ask questions and get interested. Where did that guy come from? Who is he? How did Cap get frozen? How much of the story will end up taking place in modern times?

That's just one example of many. Even using the example above, they actually re-tell the same information in the introduction to Hal Jordan later. So you as the audience are told the information twice for no real reason. It's not even relevant to the progression of Hal Jordan as a character and you're not given any reason to care about it.

These are writing concepts that anybody can understand and see why they work. Going back to Green Lantern (I admit that it isn't fair to pick on the ugly one), being familiar with Geoff Johns' work, I was worried when he became a producer on the movie. His comics are all continuity and lore filled and have very little to do with telling a compelling story. But I thought to myself ''There's no way they won't keep him on a leash, surely they'll look at all the successful superhero films as of late and do this right''.

I think that's really the crux of the matter right there. They've yet to find a balance of making a sterile big budget movie and making a geeky cult film that will keep people coming back for more. It's a delicate balance. Instead they're falling too far to one side and missing both audiences completely.

[Tobias]

The point was, even though Marvel Studios isn't making all the movies, Marvel is getting a ton of exposure. Thus, they stay relevant. DC, however, keeps fading away.

This is true. I don't doubt for a minute that if Marvel had Spiderman instead of SONY we'd see just as agressive a shecdule by Marvel in doing Spidey. The sequel is a quick 2 years out and was schedule almost a year ago.

I'm not sure WB will do a DC film for 2014. The deadline to announce/get something going is fast approaching if they want to make 2014.

Whether they skip 2014 or not I think Flash will be next.

Say Flash in 2015 and Batman in 2016. If Flash does well the question is will WB pull a Thor or Ironman and do a quick 2 year sequel turnaround - Flash 2 in 2017? It probably would be the safest thing for them given how these 2 year sequel turnarounds seem to be working for Marvel.

[chiefchirpa]

This is true. I don't doubt for a minute that if Marvel had Spiderman instead of SONY we'd see just as agressive a shecdule by Marvel in doing Spidey. The sequel is a quick 2 years out and was schedule almost a year ago.

I'm not sure WB will do a DC film for 2014. The deadline to announce/get something going is fast approaching if they want to make 2014.

Whether they skip 2014 or not I think Flash will be next.

Say Flash in 2015 and Batman in 2016. If Flash does well the question is will WB pull a Thor or Ironman and do a quick 2 year sequel turnaround - Flash 2 in 2017? It probably would be the safest thing for them given how these 2 year sequel turnarounds seem to be working for Marvel.

Flash can be cooked fast for 2014. WW for 2015. I don't care for another Batman - at least after JL.

[roach]

I'm sorry, but I kindly disagree. If there were other Kryptonians that survived the explosion of the planet or if Superman had any offspring, then what would be the point??? I just prefer Superman as a stand alone hero.

his origin doesn't change because someone else survives...hell we know Kal-El isn't the only survivor since Zod is in the new movie.

[The Guard]

1) They're tried and true story templates that have resonated with people time and time again. They focus on being great stories first, and great superhero stories second. (For the most part they've hit both of those out of the park each time.)

2) They approach the casual fan with tons of care, being sure not to alienate anyone and waste time.

The two reasons the MCU is successful are the same reasons a lot of DC movies have been spectacular failures.

"They're safe".

The second Green Lantern opened up with an extended space sequence talking about the lore of the universe and Corps, I knew the movie had no chance. It's such an abysmal, insulting way to open a movie. Educating your audience point black at the start of the movie can work, but it has to be done so flawlessly and with subtlety that I'm shocked they even attempted it.

You knew the movie had no chance because it opened with as short space sequence/voiceover to introduce an alien concept? Suggesting that a voiceover has to be subtle to work in context is ridiculous. Look at the opening of The Lord of The Rings. It's pure exposition. So are many other movies.

The Green Lantern film's opening functions to build myth. It's not meant to be a complete mystery. It's meant to introduce the scale of the story, and the villain, and it does.

Compare that to Thor, which opens with a man getting decked by a truck in the middle of nowhere.

Which everyone knows is Thor. Is there supposed to be some mystery to this moment? It's a chance to hook the audience with a few laughs and a slight mystery. The film then immediately goes to an extended space/voiceover sequence that is almost pure exposition.

And Cap, which opens with a shield being found frozen in the middle of the arctic. These are scenarios that a person can understand immediately.

I don't think the Green Lantern opening sequence was that hard to understand, frankly.

That's just one example of many. Even using the example above, they actually re-tell the same information in the introduction to Hal Jordan later. So you as the audience are told the information twice for no real reason. It's not even relevant to the progression of Hal Jordan as a character and you're not given any reason to care about it.

As I recall, the movie doesn't tell you the same thing twice. It shows you a different angle of it. The basic facts about the Green Lantern mythology are important. Hearing about them twice is hardly a weak approach to the concept. The only reason you should need to care about it is if you care about the concept.

[Tobias]

Flash can be cooked fast for 2014. WW for 2015. I don't care for another Batman - at least after JL.

Flash shouldn't be cooked too fast. WB has to get it right. If there is no DC annoucement by end of summer I'd guess WB will pass on 2014.

If Flash is a go for 2014 then my bet is Batman goes in the 2015 slot. WB's top DC priority is to get get Batman relaunched.

WW is risky. If Flash is a success say in 2014 I wouldn't be surprised to see a sequel in 2016. Probably a better bet than WW in 2016.

[Docker2.0]

If Avengers do the numbers that everyone is predicting, you can guarantee a rush job by the WB to do a JLA by 2014. With this being Nolan's final Batman movie, and the Avengers doing well, it's pretty much a done deal. You will hear the drums beating around August or September. Write down the dates. :o


But really, if I was WB, I'd pay Bale whatever he wants and have him and Cavill do a World's Finest movie. That alone would beat possibly anything a JLA would make and could possibly even challenge the Avengers if done right.

[redfirebird2008]

WB's top DC priority is to get get Batman relaunched.

Because 7 Batman movies aren't enough. Geez. This is my biggest fear with the superhero genre. Oversaturation similar to what goes on in the horror genre.

[thalidomide]

Because 7 Batman movies aren't enough. Geez. This is my biggest fear with the superhero genre. Oversaturation similar to what goes on in the horror genre.


Well you can't deny the fact that Batman is the money maker of DC next to Superman. I could be wrong :)

[Tobias]

Well you can't deny the fact that Batman is the money maker of DC next to Superman. I could be wrong :)

No next to Superman. Batman is far and away the biggest DC moneymaker.

[DrCosmic]

If Avengers do the numbers that everyone is predicting, you can guarantee a rush job by the WB to do a JLA by 2014. With this being Nolan's final Batman movie, and the Avengers doing well, it's pretty much a done deal. You will hear the drums beating around August or September. Write down the dates.

Sounds like wishful thinking. WB knew what Avengers was capable of when they said they were doing solo franchises. Avengers making 600Mil is not going to inspire WB to risk Batman's billion dollar franchise, especially if Superman also makes 600Mil.

[ElMariachi]

Iron Man 2 made 600 million without 3D. I cant imagine Avengers only making that much.

[metaphysician]

Sounds like wishful thinking. WB knew what Avengers was capable of when they said they were doing solo franchises. Avengers making 600Mil is not going to inspire WB to risk Batman's billion dollar franchise, especially if Superman also makes 600Mil.

Don't overestimate the power of "not invented here." It would not shock me at all if WB didn't take Avengers seriously until a few months ago.

Also, that's a hilarious low ball estimate for Avengers.

[rayc1971]

yea avengers will do 800mill to 1billion ww if man of steel is a hit then wb does jla and then launch flash and wonder woman solo films after.

[ЯɘvlveR]

Because 7 Batman movies aren't enough. Geez. This is my biggest fear with the superhero genre. Oversaturation similar to what goes on in the horror genre.

well it's what they will undoubtedly do. its what they did with returns, and its what snyder is doing with MOS.

[Parker Wayne]

"They're safe".


Exactly. They are safe.

But here's what people who underestimate that are forgetting. They're staying true to the hearts of their character stories while making consistently good movies, something that WB, Fox, and Sony (post Spider-man 2 and even during) have all struggled with. If it's as easy as what Marvel naysayers do, why haven't those studios been consistently successful?

I'm not saying Marvel is perfect, but they're doing very well for themselves considering that they actually came out of nowhere with that success.

EDIT: Another problem with Marvel is that it could possibly start to feel more of an "assembly line" if they continue to roll out origin movies for characters

[The Guard]

Exactly. They are safe.

But here's what people who underestimate that are forgetting. They're staying true to the hearts of their character stories while making consistently good movies, something that WB, Fox, and Sony (post Spider-man 2 and even during) have all struggled with. If it's as easy as what Marvel naysayers do, why haven't those studios been consistently successful?

I don't think anyone's forgetting that fact. Those are two of the most apparent elements about the Marvel movies.

The other studios have had success without using Marvel's formula. SPIDER-MAN 3 made a ton of money, and THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN looks like a solid movie. X-MEN: THE LAST STAND made a ton of money. WOLVERINE made money. GHOST RIDER made money. X-MEN: FIRST CLASS made money. BATMAN BEGINS and THE DARK KNIGHT made a lot of money. SUPERMAN RETURNS wasn't safe enough, so it didn't draw that well, but it still made money. WATCHMEN wasn't a safe film, and it was a bit of a niche film, so it didn't draw that well. I find GREEN LANTERN's failure to be a bit of an anomaly, myself. It's a fairly safe movie, but it didn't make a lot of money. I don't think it's because audiences suddenly developed critiquing skills, so I can't say it's because it wasn't a good movie. It was a decent film. Personally, I think GREEN LANTERN suffered from a Summer of Superheroes and Action.

I'm not saying Marvel is perfect, but they're doing very well for themselves considering that they actually came out of nowhere with that success.

When you say they "came out of nowhere with that success", what are you referring to? The box office?

[Docker2.0]

Don't overestimate the power of "not invented here." It would not shock me at all if WB didn't take Avengers seriously until a few months ago.

Also, that's a hilarious low ball estimate for Avengers.

yea avengers will do 800mill to 1billion ww if man of steel is a hit then wb does jla and then launch flash and wonder woman solo films after.

Agree with both!! WB almost rushed out JL:M due to overreaction, so you mean to tell me with the combo of this being Nolan's final Batman and the Avengers doing well, WB won't rush anything?! It wouldn't surprise me if they really did call Whedon to do the movie. :o

[Spider - Man]

5.) Says who? You? Zod is an interesting villain, and the perfect one for an origin story.

6 Superman movies - villains:
1. Luthor
2. Luthor, Zod, Non and Ursa
3. Robert Vaughan and Richard Pryor (don;t even know their fictional names)
4. Luthor and 'Nuclear Man(?)'
5. Luthor
6. Zod and Faora

Come on!! Try something new!!

[Parker Wayne]

I don't think anyone's forgetting that fact. Those are two of the most apparent elements about the Marvel movies.

The other studios have had success without using Marvel's formula. SPIDER-MAN 3 made a ton of money, and THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN looks like a solid movie. X-MEN: THE LAST STAND made a ton of money. WOLVERINE made money. GHOST RIDER made money. X-MEN: FIRST CLASS made money. BATMAN BEGINS and THE DARK KNIGHT made a lot of money. SUPERMAN RETURNS wasn't safe enough, so it didn't draw that well, but it still made money. WATCHMEN wasn't a safe film, and it was a bit of a niche film, so it didn't draw that well. I find GREEN LANTERN's failure to be a bit of an anomaly, myself. It's a fairly safe movie, but it didn't make a lot of money. I don't think it's because audiences suddenly developed critiquing skills, so I can't say it's because it wasn't a good movie. It was a decent film. Personally, I think GREEN LANTERN suffered from a Summer of Superheroes and Action.



I'm only counting respective superhero movies within their universe and I'm talking more from a critical point of view than from a financial. Spider-man 3, X3, and Wolverine were bad to awful movies. That's one of the two reasons why X-men First Class didn't do better. The other one being obvious.

So was Green Lantern, except Green Lantern didn't have great preceding movies to support their legs. Green Lantern suffered from being a bad movie. That's why it made significantly less than any of ther other Superhero movies and even action movies. It suffered from rewrites, poor acting, a continuously increasing budget, and worst of all, bad marketing.

People do forget because Marvel does get underestimated a lot around here. Of course, they certainly deserve some criticism, but not as much as some people put on them, especially when comparing their success at multiple superhero franchises in terms to others.


When you say they "came out of nowhere with that success", what are you referring to? The box office?

I meant as in establishing themself as a legit studio. No one thought Iron Man, a B list character in terms of pop culture would become an A lister after the movie. It gave them unprecedented success that they been somewhat successful at doing, but not fully successful.

[Docker2.0]

6 Superman movies - villains:
1. Luthor
2. Luthor, Zod, Non and Ursa
3. Robert Vaughan and Richard Pryor (don;t even know their fictional names)
4. Luthor and 'Nuclear Man(?)'
5. Luthor
6. Zod and Faora

Come on!! Try something new!!

I agree! I can't believe we have yet to see Darkseid or Brainiac on film. PS- with the Avengers announcing the other secret villian, they kind of beat DC to the punch with their matching counterpart.

[roach]

6 Superman movies - villains:
1. Luthor
2. Luthor, Zod, Non and Ursa
3. Robert Vaughan and Richard Pryor (don;t even know their fictional names)
4. Luthor and 'Nuclear Man(?)'
5. Luthor
6. Zod and Faora

Come on!! Try something new!!

Zod and Richard Pryor???

[Tobias]

6 Superman movies - villains:
1. Luthor
2. Luthor, Zod, Non and Ursa
3. Robert Vaughan and Richard Pryor (don;t even know their fictional names)
4. Luthor and 'Nuclear Man(?)'
5. Luthor
6. Zod and Faora

Come on!! Try something new!!

I think WB would have done something new/different had the film come about of their own volition and with the intent of relaunching.

However, given what happened, I think WB spent as little as possible to make MOS. Hence no grandiose expensive villains.

Even at that MOS is costing a lot. Around 175 million I think.

Superman is just too expensive to make.

[HighFivingMF]

Zod's cheap? With his powers, mo-cap suit, and a back-up?

[Duke]

6 Superman movies - villains:
1. Luthor
2. Luthor, Zod, Non and Ursa
3. Robert Vaughan and Richard Pryor (don;t even know their fictional names)
4. Luthor and 'Nuclear Man(?)'
5. Luthor
6. Zod and Faora

Come on!! Try something new!!

I agree. They need to try other Superman villians like Metallo, Brainiac, Darkside, Bizarro, Prankster, or Parasite.

[The Guard]

I'm only counting respective superhero movies within their universe and I'm talking more from a critical point of view than from a financial. Spider-man 3, X3, and Wolverine were bad to awful movies. That's one of the two reasons why X-men First Class didn't do better. The other one being obvious.

So was Green Lantern, except Green Lantern didn't have great preceding movies to support their legs. Green Lantern suffered from being a bad movie. That's why it made significantly less than any of ther other Superhero movies and even action movies. It suffered from rewrites, poor acting, a continuously increasing budget, and worst of all, bad marketing.

I don't agree with you that any of those movies were actually bad to awful. Well, maybe WOLVERINE.

But I would imagine that the reason FIRST CLASS did not do as well as the other X-Men movies was not because it was the sequel to two "bad" movies, which both made plenty of money (X-MEN: THE LAST STAND grossed $459 million worldwide, and WOLVERINE, which grossed $373 million worldwide) but rather because it was in the middle of a summer of big action and superhero movies, and actually had competition, and featured a new take on the material rather than the one audiences had grown accustomed to, and a cast of relative unknowns to general audiences instead of Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellan, Halle Berry, etc. While James McAvoy has a bit of a niche audience, Kevin Bacon and January Jones are hardly superstars. Jennifer Lawrence had some Oscar buzz, but she was still a relative unknown to most people, as were most the rest of the young cast, including Michael Fassbender at the time.

People do forget because Marvel does get underestimated a lot around here. Of course, they certainly deserve some criticism, but not as much as some people put on them, especially when comparing their success at multiple superhero franchises in terms to others.

Trust me. Almost no one forgets that Marvel tells relatively faithful, straightforward stories. Just because they don't talk about it doesn't mean they've forgotten it.

I meant as in establishing themself as a legit studio. No one thought Iron Man, a B list character in terms of pop culture would become an A lister after the movie. It gave them unprecedented success that they been somewhat successful at doing, but not fully successful.

Ah. To a point, yes.

I don't get the whining about Zod around here. We haven't seen Zod on film in over 30 years. Yes, it'd be nice to see something that we've never seen onscreen, but given the approach taken, he's essentially something new. He's one of Superman's greatest foes. He provides the superpowered action people so desperately craved, as well as a human (Kryptonian?) element to the villain.

[Tobias]

Disney Studios itself may now be getting into the Marvel superhero movie-making business.

From the animated side which is Disney's forte.

Rumor, check out the Marvel movie board, is that Disney may be planning an epic-style Marvel animated film.

Marvel and Disney seem to be doubling down but I have to beleive at some point we reach the saturation point on these kind of films. But for now Disney seems to want to get into the money-making cash cow that the Marvel characters have/are proving to be.

[metaphysician]

6 Superman movies - villains:
1. Luthor
2. Luthor, Zod, Non and Ursa
3. Robert Vaughan and Richard Pryor (don;t even know their fictional names)
4. Luthor and 'Nuclear Man(?)'
5. Luthor
6. Zod and Faora

Come on!! Try something new!!

I've said it before, I'll say it again- my own preference for a Superman trilogy:

1. Brainiac ( TAS version ), with Luther introduced but not yet antagonistic
2. Luther, with some version of Metallo or Bizarro or both used as muscle
3. Zod, with Superman and Luther forced into an uncomfortable alliance

[Ultimatehero]

They don't trust the people they hire and they don't go all out.

For example, they hired Kevin Smith then gave him all of these guidelines and things he had to use. Even with those restrictions, gotta admit, he gave them a really awesome script in my opinion. One that opened up the DC universe. At least they're trusting Nolan and Snyder completely with Superman it seems like.

The Jack Black 'Green Lantern' script? Yeah, gotta say - that script sucked. I've read it. But, personally I enjoyed the Berlanti/Green/Guggenheim 'Green Lantern' script. I have no idea what happened but the re-write after that? Literally destroyed the film beyond recognition. I think because they wanted to make it darker and this was more fantastical. Hell, it even gave them a possible connection with Superman in the script. If they would have just done that??? They'd have the start of the MARVEL universe - no kidding - they would have nailed it.

Then you've got them ditching Whedon's 'Wonder Woman' script. I'm in the biz. I've read the actual script. That version? Beyond rocked. Everything after? You could see DC only had budget in mind. The scope became much smaller and it became much more realistic.

Basically what I'm saying is - back in the day they should have trusted Kevin Smith. If you've read his Green Arrow comics, you know what you're in for. They should have trusted Whedon, he handed them a kick ass script and they refused it. Then they destroyed their 2008 'First draft' Green Lantern script and we got what we got. Basically where DC is concerned, I think where they went wrong is in only trusting Nolan and no one else. They've had wasted opportunity over wasted opportunity time and time again and usually the same thing happens. Marvel's taking risks, DC won't.

[DoomsdayApex]

6 Superman movies - villains:
1. Luthor
2. Luthor, Zod, Non and Ursa
3. Robert Vaughan and Richard Pryor (don;t even know their fictional names)
4. Luthor and 'Nuclear Man(?)'
5. Luthor
6. Zod and Faora

Come on!! Try something new!!

I agree, it's redundant. However, going for a villain like Metallo in an origin film doesn't fit or make sense. Furthermore, villains like Darkseid, Doomsday and Brainiac are the heavier threats (and cost more money to place in action). They belong in sequels, not origin films.

It'd be the equivalent of The Avengers of utilizing Thanos in the first installment.

[Parker Wayne]

I don't agree with you that any of those movies were actually bad to awful. Well, maybe WOLVERINE.

But I would imagine that the reason FIRST CLASS did not do as well as the other X-Men movies was not because it was the sequel to two "bad" movies, which both made plenty of money (X-MEN: THE LAST STAND grossed $459 million worldwide, and WOLVERINE, which grossed $373 million worldwide) but rather because it was in the middle of a summer of big action and superhero movies, and actually had competition, and featured a new take on the material rather than the one audiences had grown accustomed to, and a cast of relative unknowns to general audiences instead of Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellan, Halle Berry, etc. While James McAvoy has a bit of a niche audience, Kevin Bacon and January Jones are hardly superstars. Jennifer Lawrence had some Oscar buzz, but she was still a relative unknown to most people, as were most the rest of the young cast, including Michael Fassbender at the time.


Yes, that's the other reason. The lack of the starpower (especially Jackman) hurt the movie as well as two sequels that left a bad taste in audiences mouths, especially Wolverine.

[Mondragon]

It wouldn't surprise me if they really did call Whedon to do the movie. :o
I don't know, they had him working on a Wonder Woman script forever, and apparently couldn't come to terms on how to approach the character for a movie

On a parallel note, from an interview http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=38239 here's Whedon's take on what makes Marvel's characters different from DC's and why they worked for launching an ensemble movie-
- "It's enormously difficult to take very disparate characters and make them work, and DC has a harder time of it than Marvel because their characters are from a bygone era where characters were bigger than we were," Whedon said. "They've amended that, but Marvel really cracked the code in terms of, 'Oh, they're just like us!' So a dose of that veracity that Marvel started with 'Iron Man', I think you need to use that as your base."

Is he right? Wrong?

Strangely enough, DC has one of the most not super but "human" characters in Batman. Is he from a bygone era? Or is the contemporary take on the character completely relevant for today? I think the later.

What Whedon describes as Marvel having a "base" to build on in Iron-Man, DC had in the Dark Knight, they just refused to recognized it as their base, and saw it and the rest of their franchise as separate.

I think this was their biggest mistake.

[DoomsdayApex]

Like I said in the MoS boards, it's merely sour grapes from WB rejecting Whedon's script for Wonder Woman. From what has been said here by WB sources, apparently, Whedon went the Aronofsky-route with Wonder Woman, and WB wanted no part of it.

Anywho, both WB and Whedon were better off. I don't think Whedon was the right man for the job (at least for me). I'm not a fan of his style at all.

[Ultimatehero]

How exactly did he go the Aronofsky route? Nothing in the script is Aronofsky in the least. And just saying - wait until 'The Avengers' because it seems to be along the same as his WW.

[HighFivingMF]

If Avengers is along the lines of Whedon's Wonder Woman, then he did Wonder Woman wrong.

[Ultimatehero]

I can't really say anything without revealing information. This is beyond difficult lol. All I can say is wait and see. From all the comics I've read leading up to reading the script, he was faithful to the source. His Wonder Woman and all his female characters were strong. The gods were done justice. The action was out of this world. After that draft? Things fell apart. They tried to make it more gritty and realistic. Diana became weaker. The action became more cliche. I have yet to see that many comic book films surpass what this would have been in my mind. Also I checked out a previous thread - the rumor that it was a period piece? Absolutely incorrect.

[Ultimatehero]

Edit.

[DoomsdayApex]

How exactly did he go the Aronofsky route? Nothing in the script is Aronofsky in the least. And just saying - wait until 'The Avengers' because it seems to be along the same as his WW.

I'm not citing that Whedon went 'Aronofksy'. I'm saying that Whedon radically changed some things about Wonder Woman similar to how Aronofsky changed several mythos to Batman in his Year One script.

[DoomsdayApex]

Edit

[Ultimatehero]

I'm not citing that Whedon went 'Aronofksy'. I'm saying that Whedon radically changed some things about Wonder Woman similar to how Aronofsky altered several mythos to Batman in his Year One script.

Seeing as no one here to my knowledge has actually read the script? What exactly do you think he changed? I can tell you if it's a false rumor or not. Because unlike those here and fake scripts circulating - I've actually read it.

[DoomsdayApex]

Seeing as no one here to my knowledge has actually read the script? What exactly do you think he changed? I can tell you if it's a false rumor or not. Because unlike those here and fake scripts circulating - I've actually read it.

I can't be sure if it's the real copy of the script or not but I've talked to two legitimate sources on this site (who have been 'on-the-money' with Batman and Superman stuff) but one can't confirm the leak and the other one did. So it's difficult to say whether or not I've seen the actual script and sketches, but both offered their displeasements over how Whedon handled Wonder Woman.

How much can you share?

[Ultimatehero]

I can't share none because I actually am at one of the companies that was behind the film and I'm on contract. What I can do is say yes or no to false rumors flying around out there. Now, if you have a false rumor or any details - I can tell you if it's the correct script or not. But beyond that I can't say a thing. Those who know me here probably have a clue of where I'm connected. I need no proof more than that.

Additional note because some might think I'll reveal things in private messaging. Some people have already tried. Don't. I will not share anything about this film. In my mind's eye it's underwraps for a reason or else it'd be out there for everyone to read like Kevin Smith's 'Superman.' So I can't say a thing.

[DoomsdayApex]

I can't share none because I actually am at one of the companies that was behind the film and I'm on contract. What I can do is say yes or no to false rumors flying around out there. Now, if you have a false rumor or any details - I can tell you if it's the correct script or not. But beyond that I can't say a thing. Those who know me here probably have a clue of where I'm connected. I need no proof more than that.

Additional note because some might think I'll reveal things in private messaging. Some people have already tried. Don't. I will not share anything about this film. In my mind's eye it's underwraps for a reason or else it'd be out there for everyone to read like Kevin Smith's 'Superman.' So I can't say a thing.

I understand. I'm not going to force the issue. It's your job, and I'm not that guy.

Would you prefer private messaging or is it okay to discuss it here?

[Ultimatehero]

Can't do either. I mean, dude, just drop down some of the things you've heard in generalizations and I'll you if it's accurate or not. Basically dispelling rumors. That's all I can do. I can tell you that the whole WWII rumor that I've heard just from googling to try to find out what this Aronofsky thing is - is 100% incorrect.

[DoomsdayApex]

No, I meant if it's okay to 'confirm' whether or not the rumors were true or false on here or through private messaging, but I got it. :up:

First rumor: Looking at the sketches, I saw six outfits -- one featuring a black trenchcoat and another with an awkward-looking skirt engulfed with stars and stripes. Can you verify if these are accurate to Whedon's vision?

[Cain]

I remember the WWII spec script being completely unrelated to Whedon. Nothing unfaithful about that BTW cause it's a golden age character we're talking about here.

RE: rumors from Whedon's draft though

Her being all catty with Steve Trevor throughout and needing Steve to help humanize her; true or false?

Diana not learning how to deflect bullets with her bracelets on Themiscyra but taking bullets to the chest and pulling them out instead and learning the importance of dodging projectiles that way; true or false?

Cause if true then yeah those are elements that are definitely not in line with WW comic books. As a fan they seem like suspect as hell choices to me and I could see why they upset many people.

[Cain]

No, I meant if it's okay to 'confirm' whether or not the rumors were true or false on here or through private messaging, but I got it. :up:

First rumor: Looking at the sketches, I saw six outfits -- one featuring a black trenchcoat and another with an awkward-looking skirt engulfed with stars and stripes. Can you verify if these are accurate to Whedon's vision?


Yeah that's another one. Apparently he didn't want the iconic look according to rumor.

[Ultimatehero]

No mention of anything like that in the script.

Diana is already much humanized without Steve in the script. Definitely not catty in how I'm picturing it. She's strong. Sounds like a different version that I've read. There was a script that played her up as a helpless female with no clue at all, less action, and just their relationship with Steve being the hero. That script in all honesty wasn't good at all.

Nope. False.

[DoomsdayApex]

I remember the WWII spec script being completely unrelated to Whedon. Nothing unfaithful about that BTW cause it's a golden age character we're talking about here.

RE: rumors from Whedon's draft though

Her being all catty with Steve Trevor throughout and needing Steve to help humanize her; true or false?

Diana not learning how to deflect bullets with her bracelets on Themiscyra but taking bullets to the chest and pulling them out instead and learning the importance of dodging projectiles that way; true or false?

Cause if true then yeah those are elements that are definitely not in line with WW comic books. As a fan they seem like suspect as hell choices to me and I could see why they upset many people.

Yeah, I remember that, but I cant be sure from what script.

Thank god it was false.

[Cain]

No mention of anything like that in the script.

Diana is already much humanized without Steve in the script. Definitely not catty in how I'm picturing it. She's strong. Sounds like a different version that I've read.

Nope. False.

Interesting. As a Wonder Woman fan I was kinda glad they canned the project cause of those rumors amongst others; but if that wasn't the case I do wonder (no pun) just how close Whedon did end up getting after all. A shame if he really did nail a lot of the key elements of the mythos within a cinematic narrative and they just went "do not want!".

[Ultimatehero]

That's what happened in the end. And we saw the same thing happen with 'Green Lantern' more or less. DC even at that time wanted something that was dark and gritty and realistic. Anyone who read the first draft of 'Green Lantern' knows - DC took out the more fantastical elements in it and made it come off less like a comic book. That's exactly what I kept finding in drafts that weren't Whedons. That exact take. Darker, grittier, less budget. There was one in which the Amazon city was just a foot-note.

As I said before, DC's main problem is fearing going in the comic book route. For whatever reason they want to stay away from that and distance themselves from that. They're really just afraid of taking risks. I'm hoping 'Avengers' will stop them from fearing these takes that do basically seem like comic books in live action form. Because to me that - for most of these characters - is inevitably what is going to work and pay off.

[Cain]

Yeah I read the first draft of GL and enjoyed it much more than the finished product. I was actually quite flabbergasted at how badly it was reduced by the time it reached final draft and we got what we saw on film when I saw the movie last summer. You'd expect the script to get better and not much worse.

[DoomsdayApex]

Rumor #2:

In the script, Diana is supposedly 'brainwashed' into being anti-man right from the get-go, is it true?

[Ultimatehero]

Yeah I read the first draft of GL and enjoyed it much more than the finished product. I was actually quite flabbergasted at how badly it was reduced by the time it reached final draft and we got what we saw on film when I saw the movie last summer. You'd expect the script to get better and not much worse.

Exactly and if you really look at what happened. That script was a lot more fantastical. It was like a comic book basically, just needed some fine tuning. But, all first drafts do. And the same outlook is what I saw for the other WW scripts passed Whedon's. Lower budget. Make it darker. Ground it. As said, in one script we never see Amazon city. That alone says DC's level thinking with it's supporting characters.

[Ultimatehero]

Rumor #2:

In the script, Diana is supposedly 'brainwashed' into being anti-man right from the get-go, is it true?

LMAOL. These rumors are actually out there? Way false. To them Steve is hot. Or I should say the younger Amazonians, the older are too caught up in their ways. Imagine a babe in a military base where only dudes are - you got the idea of how depending on rank and age one would react. Or imagine an alien landing here, you wouldn't hate them from the get-go, you'd be interested but also cautious. "What is this strange creature?" (Not a line)

[DoomsdayApex]

LMAOL. These rumors are actually out there? Way false. To them Steve is hot. Or I should say the younger Amazonians, the older are too caught up in their ways. Imagine a babe in the military base where only dudes are - you got the idea.

Great! I figured that would be a sh**ty route for ANY director to take. Whew.

Rumor #3: Incidentally, by the second act, the film takes a romantic-comedy angle between Diana and Steve. True?

Rumor #4: Diana makes her debut as a superhero similar to how Superman made his return in Superman Returns. Hot or cold?

[Blackman]

That's what happened in the end. And we saw the same thing happen with 'Green Lantern' more or less. DC even at that time wanted something that was dark and gritty and realistic. Anyone who read the first draft of 'Green Lantern' knows - DC took out the more fantastical elements in it and made it come off less like a comic book. That's exactly what I kept finding in drafts that weren't Whedons. That exact take. Darker, grittier, less budget. There was one in which the Amazon city was just a foot-note.

As I said before, DC's main problem is fearing going in the comic book route. For whatever reason they want to stay away from that and distance themselves from that. They're really just afraid of taking risks. I'm hoping 'Avengers' will stop them from fearing these takes that do basically seem like comic books in live action form. Because to me that - for most of these characters - is inevitably what is going to work and pay off.
Been lurking in this thread for a bit because I feel like I discussed what I dont like about WB's method to the point of exhaustion

However, this point is interesting to me. I know a lot of people are tired of this movie as an example but I think one of the reasons The Dark Knight was successful was because it didn't feel like a superhero film. Obviously it had superhero movie elements, but it seemed to focus more on being a crime/gangster movie more than a superhero/comic movie. Another example, X-Men: FC felt like a spy movie and a revenge film for at least part of it

I think that's where the success is. I think WB should actually shy away about making superhero movies and focus on the other aspects more. If they make Aquaman more of an underwater King Arthur/Game of Thrones I think it would be more successful and be taken more seriously. If they make Wonder Woman more of a Greek Mythology movie, have more military aspects, and focus on Diana's role as a diplomatI think it will be more successful

THe only one that I think would be better of being just a comic book movie (not saying that's a bad thing) would be a JL project. But for the big 6 (7 if they want Martian Manhunter) I think you can make them better by not being just comic book movies

[Ultimatehero]

That was a totally unrelate script that included, to my best memory, naval war games lol. Yeah, that one was pretty stupid.

We've seen something similar before that's classy and memorable - but not in SR in any way shape or form.

[Ultimatehero]

I'm actually unsure if you can go that route in many of these. After all, you are telling an origin story. For example, Green Lantern being completely in outer space - I'd see that more as the sequel. With Wonder Woman, how can you have it be completely Greek mythology like Clash of the Titans for example? She's located in Gateway City. I'd say this script in just outline was a lot like another MARVEL film. So yes, in part it was very Greek Mythology in modern day. The other scripts, as said, didn't even delve into that. I consider that the more comic-book approach.

It's as MARVEL said at the end of the day these are all superhero films. But what genre do they fit in more? Same approach here.

[DoomsdayApex]

OH OH OH!

Completely unrelated, but considering you mentioned Green Lantern, I'm one of the few that wants a sequel (simply because Strong as Sinestro has too much potential), what are the chances of a sequel?

[HighFivingMF]

I don't have any specific questions, I just haven't met many who have so I'm really just looking for a yes or no. But anyway, do you more than the average internet person does about the abandoned David Goyer/Ryan Reynolds Flash movie?

[Ultimatehero]

As in every company it's divided. I have no idea about 'Green Lantern' nor do the people I know know anything about 'Green Lantern.' Okay, you've got a company. A studio that puts out all of these films and within that studio you have all of these smaller sub-companies that have a deal with said studio. They're all divided but they're also all under the same banner. There may be talks but a lot of it no one knows.

[Blackman]

I'm actually unsure if you can go that route in many of these. After all, you are telling an origin story. For example, Green Lantern being completely in outer space - I'd see that more as the sequel. With Wonder Woman, how can you have it be completely Greek mythology like Clash of the Titans for example? She's located in Gateway City. I'd say this script in just outline was a lot like another MARVEL film. So yes, in part it was very Greek Mythology in modern day. The other scripts, as said, didn't even delve into that. I consider that the more comic-book approach.

It's as MARVEL said at the end of the day these are all superhero films. But what genre do they fit in more? Same approach here.

oh I never think that GL should be 100% in space. Where does that leave Carol, Hal's(Kyle's or John's) family and human life. But I still think they couldve made it more like a cop movie. A space cop movie

With WW, no it cant be a straight Greek mythology movie like Clash, but their are still elements of the political side of WW

EDIT: Speaking of "space cop movie" I'd love for a GL film one day to be kinda like Serpico with Hal taking Serpico's place

[DoomsdayApex]

As in every company it's divided. I have no idea about 'Green Lantern' nor do the people I know know anything about 'Green Lantern.' Okay, you've got a company. A studio that puts out all of these films and within that studio you have all of these smaller sub-companies that have a deal with said studio. They're all divided but they're also all under the same banner. There may be talks but a lot of it no one knows.

Yeah, I figured after the box office results we'd probably see a divided company on deciding Green Lantern's fate.

It's a shame. Green Lantern should have been WB's Avengers (in a sense) but the script changes killed the film, in my opinion.

Five minutes in space does not make Green Lantern a Space-Opera and New Orleans makes an uninspiring Coast City.

[Ultimatehero]

oh I never think that GL should be 100% in space. Where does that leave Carol, Hal's(Kyle's or John's) family and human life. But I still think they couldve made it more like a cop movie. A space cop movie

With WW, no it cant be a straight Greek mythology movie like Clash, but their are still elements of the political side of WW

Yeah, definitely, but to me I still see that as remaining comic book. By the Batman route I didn't mean how that film some people think is outside the comic world, it's very much in it. But how dark and gritty it is. How realistic. As said - going as far as to not show Amazon City in one script.

Further breakdown, might help:

Batman is at Legacy.
Wonder Woman was at Silver.
Green Lantern is at De Line Pictures.
Unsure who has Flash.

None of these companies communicate with each other unless they just happen to talk to someone that works over there at lunch or something. It's all divided. That might be one of the main problems actually with DC being at WB. MARVEL it was just MARVEL and then Disney - one main branch (I might be wrong though of how MARVEL films work, I'm not at Disney) but that might be a part of it. Everyone's off doing their own thing at WB so you don't have that same combined atmosphere.

[DoomsdayApex]

Wow, I really thought WB and DC were more united than that. I figured DC's line-up had the advantage over Marvel's because of the character's rights being sold to studios like Fox and Sony.

I guess WB is in a giant mess when approaching the superhero genre.

[Ultimatehero]

I guess WB is in a giant mess when approaching the superhero genre.

It definitely makes things more difficult. Unsure if we can get a movie like 'The Avengers' due to the complexities of that set-up. But then again I'm unsure if things are divided at Disney with MARVEL likewise or just one branch rather than many.

[DoomsdayApex]

At this point, I'm not expecting a JL/WF/Trinity film any time soon. Sad to say, I think I would die happy if I were to get (at least) a Green Lantern sequel (done right), and Flash and Wonder Woman adaptations.

To me, relaunching Batman is much too soon within the range of five years. A MoS sequel is understandable but WB should really start taking more risks.

[Ultimatehero]

As said, that's what it all comes down to. WB gets great scripts with a lot of potential. But the budget or, most likely, fantastical elements (since I think these scripts can be done at modest blockbuster budgets, excluding Kevin Smith's Superman) scare them off. Basically because they all seem to go in the same pattern. Man of Steel is probably hands-off mostly due to Nolan being behind it - he has his own office.

[Parker Wayne]

As I said in the past, I just want a World's Finest Film. I want that so much more than a full-on JL movie.

[Ultimatehero]

That itself is or should be possible, but only as long as Batman & Superman remain in some way under Nolan or Legendary.

[The Morningstar]

I can't take credit for this idea because someone else mentioned it but, Green Lantern should have been like Training Day, in space. That would have been ridiculously awesome.

[Bruce_Begins]

Yeah, definitely, but to me I still see that as remaining comic book. By the Batman route I didn't mean how that film some people think is outside the comic world, it's very much in it. But how dark and gritty it is. How realistic. As said - going as far as to not show Amazon City in one script.

Further breakdown, might help:

Batman is at Legacy.
Wonder Woman was at Silver.
Green Lantern is at De Line Pictures.
Unsure who has Flash.

None of these companies communicate with each other unless they just happen to talk to someone that works over there at lunch or something. It's all divided. That might be one of the main problems actually with DC being at WB. MARVEL it was just MARVEL and then Disney - one main branch (I might be wrong though of how MARVEL films work, I'm not at Disney) but that might be a part of it. Everyone's off doing their own thing at WB so you don't have that same combined atmosphere.

I think that Wonder Woman's rights are no longer with Joel Silver, now WB has all the movie making rights. as reported by Nikki Finke.

http://www.deadline.com/2009/09/exclusive-warner-bros-jeff-robinov-restructures-dc-comics-diane-nelson-put-in-charge-of-dc-business-existing-dc-titles-pulled-from-producers/

Even when Silver had rights WB could make a JLA movie as they were going to make JL:Mortal which was going to be directed by George Millar.

Even now the rights to make a Superman and Batman movies are with WB, as far as I know Legendary Pictures are only co producers /co financiers not the owners of movie rights to Batman or Superman.

[Ultimatehero]

All of the above is correct (BB). And ok then, JLA is more possible now. Just, as said, those sub-companies are incommunicato with one another.

[metaphysician]

Wow, I've been saying that WB seemed to have internal issues, but I never thought it was *this* bad/complicated. . .

[Ultimatehero]

Only really where DC is concerned since the way it's divided within the system is confusing. Everything else is the same as every other studio in its divisions. Just, seemingly, most haven't thought about what's going on behind the scenes with all the sub company labels that appear on screen after the main studio label.

[Blackman]

I think they should try to get all the projects co financed at LEgendary

[Fudgie]

Wow, I've been saying that WB seemed to have internal issues, but I never thought it was *this* bad/complicated. . .

Me neither. It explains a lot.

[Docker2.0]

I don't know, they had him working on a Wonder Woman script forever, and apparently couldn't come to terms on how to approach the character for a movie

On a parallel note, from an interview http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=38239 here's Whedon's take on what makes Marvel's characters different from DC's and why they worked for launching an ensemble movie-
- "It's enormously difficult to take very disparate characters and make them work, and DC has a harder time of it than Marvel because their characters are from a bygone era where characters were bigger than we were," Whedon said. "They've amended that, but Marvel really cracked the code in terms of, 'Oh, they're just like us!' So a dose of that veracity that Marvel started with 'Iron Man', I think you need to use that as your base."

Is he right? Wrong?

Strangely enough, DC has one of the most not super but "human" characters in Batman. Is he from a bygone era? Or is the contemporary take on the character completely relevant for toady? I think the later.

What Whedon describes as Marvel having a "base" to build on in Iron-Man, DC had in the Dark Knight, they just refused to recognized it as their base, and saw it and the rest of their franchise as separate.

I think this was their biggest mistake.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if they called Whedon if the Avengers are a success and I couldn't blame them because of what he did with the Avengers. But honestly, I think they should do a World's Finest movie first before JL because that should be how they build up to it.

And as far as DC's characters being bigger than Marvel's.....I think he's right. DC tends to have their heroes to be more like gods than people with powers, which is why I laugh at Marvel vs DC fights because DC heroes are made actually to be stronger than Marvel's. If you ask anyone who's a cornier character out of Captain America(who's a boy scout)and Superman(who's also a boy scout)people will say Superman, even though they basically have the exact same principles. It's why he kind of looks like a bully going against Lex because Lex has no powers and is smart and Supes has every power imaginable. With Snyder producing MOS, there's no question it will do well but I honestly don't know how well it's going to do at the box office due to them using Zod yet again and the history of Superman. I want it to do well because if it doesn't, then you can say goodbye to everything DC with the exception of Batman making it to film. But if they have no plans to do a JL movie, which I believe they do but they are going about it the wrong way, I say do a World's Finest first. That's just my two cents. :o

[The Guard]

For example, they hired Kevin Smith then gave him all of these guidelines and things he had to use. Even with those restrictions, gotta admit, he gave them a really awesome script in my opinion. One that opened up the DC universe. At least they're trusting Nolan and Snyder completely with Superman it seems like.

For example, they hired Kevin Smith then gave him all of these guidelines and things he had to use. Even with those restrictions, gotta admit, he gave them a really awesome script in my opinion. One that opened up the DC universe. At least they're trusting Nolan and Snyder completely with Superman it seems like

You're referring to Smith's Superman Lives script, or a Green Lantern one?

The Jack Black 'Green Lantern' script? Yeah, gotta say - that script sucked. I've read it.

What's weird about the Jack Black/Jud Plato Green Lantern project is that it actually kind of works. It's fairly funny in places, and kind of hits all the right spots of Lantern lore, but it's not Jordan, or Rayner, or Gardner, or Stewart, or the deeper approach anyone wanted. But there is some good action and humor in that script, and I think it could have been pretty entertaining in a backward sort of way.

But, personally I enjoyed the Berlanti/Green/Guggenheim 'Green Lantern' script. I have no idea what happened but the re-write after that? Literally destroyed the film beyond recognition. I think because they wanted to make it darker and this was more fantastical. Hell, it even gave them a possible connection with Superman in the script. If they would have just done that??? They'd have the start of the MARVEL universe - no kidding - they would have nailed it.

I don't know that the use of Superman in that script/concept is really all that comparable to what Marvel did with SHIELD/Fury in IRON MAN. It was a glorified cameo moment.

I don't recall the GREEN LANTERN script being that much more fantastical than the finished product, just that there were more story/action elements. It's pretty obvious that the approach after the initial draft was not to make it darker and grittier, but rather to trim the runtime and the budget down from what it had been. The movie still had a very comic book feel to it. Too comic booky for some. If anything, it probably could have been a little darker and grittier.

One of the major issues with Green Lantern is that WB had really only seen dark and gritty succeed before it, and on some level, a production team wasn't put into place that was able to find a balance between serious and lighthearted and fun. It was their first attempt at such a film, and there were some missteps. THE FLASH will likely be the next one.

The idea that GREEN LANTERN should have taken place in space or mostly in space keeps coming up here, and is kind of silly. Beyond budget issues with that, there are character introduction concerns. He's Earth's Green Lantern. He is based on Earth, and his origins are on Earth. Earth should have been heavily featured.

I really want to believe Whedon's Wonder Woman concept was a great one, and that the script was very good, but I'll believe it when I see something more concrete about it. He himself has occassionally mentioned that he had issues with the concept.

[HighFivingMF]

The Kilowog stuff in the Smigel Lantern script was weird. Watching Superman Returns, saying it was hilarious. Becoming a couch potato.

The one genuine gigantic laugh I got from it was when Jud kept going on when Ganthet (I think, it may have just been a random Guardian) was trying to talk, so he just shouted "SHUT THE **** UP!"

[Ultimatehero]

There's no Green Arrow. Meant his 'Superman Lives.'

I'm not even really a Green Lantern fan and I don't know - it just rubbed me the wrong way - it was taking a beloved fan property and making it into a joke more or less. I wouldn't like it if that was done to one of my favorite heroes, so from that angle it just - as said - I didn't respond well to it. They could have done a spoof that didn't revolve solely around an actual character and color the way mass audiences view it.

What it did was establish that all the worlds are connected. You say glorified cameo. How is that different from Fury in Iron Man? Sure it was a build-up to 'The Avengers.' But mainly and most importantly it told the audience "these guys exist in the same universe." Which I don't think a lot of the G.A. is aware of. Comic fans, even in general, know but outside of that? I've heard one guy ask if Superman was going to be in 'The Avengers.'

I'd still say the GREEN LANTERN we got on screen was leagues darker than what we got on film. Or that might just be the way it was directed and all of the blue hues. It just seemed extremely odd in comparison to the image the first draft brings to mind.

Whedon's AVENGERS is a testament to Whedon's WONDER WOMAN, and so is his take on 'The X-Men.' Here's the thing, he's a writer lol. Writers... well, we never think anything we do is good. I have a script that I think is just mediocre. Yet a studio is interested (one of the top five). And I've heard from those who have read it that it's just as good as 'The Wizard of Oz' and 'The Neverending Story' & rivals Disney's 'Aladdin' and 'Hercules.' Do I believe these people? Only in that I keep hearing it lol. But, still, I can't really believe that it's that good. There's an old saying in Hollywood - a screenwriter is never finished, it's just taken away from them, and that's beyond true. It was a first draft and a kick ass one at that. And as a writer, there are always going to be things he'd want to work on and make better. That's just how writers are.

[HighFivingMF]

But, fun fact: In the late '90s, Kevin Smith was approached to write and direct Green Lantern. But he thought he wasn't a good fit.

[Ultimatehero]

But, fun fact: In the late '90s, Kevin Smith was approached to write and direct Green Lantern. But he thought he wasn't a good fit.

Cool and yeah, unsure how that'd turn out...

And my prior post just realized that it was asking about his Green Lantern, not Green Arrow - got confused since I brought up his run on Green Arrow in the quoted section.

[The Guard]

There's no Green Arrow. Meant his 'Superman Lives.

Ah. Yeah, SUPERMAN LIVES (Kevin Smith's draft/s) is a fun read. It's okay. Kind of an average script in the grand scheme of things.

I'm not even really a Green Lantern fan and I don't know - it just rubbed me the wrong way - it was taking a beloved fan property and making it into a joke more or less. I wouldn't like it if that was done to one of my favorite heroes, so from that angle it just - as said - I didn't respond well to it. They could have done a spoof that didn't revolve solely around an actual character and color the way mass audiences view it.

That's what was kind of weird about it, as I recall. It almost wasn't a spoof. It was almost this straight approach to the mythology, except with a ridiculous character and lots of humor surrounding that character, and his odd obtaining of the ring, which as I recall turned out to be a plot by Sinestro to prevent Hal from becoming Green Lantern or something along those lines. It was like this weird, backward love letter to the overall concept, if not the mythos.

What it did was establish that all the worlds are connected. You say glorified cameo. How is that different from Fury in Iron Man? Sure it was a build-up to 'The Avengers.' But mainly and most importantly it told the audience "these guys exist in the same universe." Which I don't think a lot of the G.A. is aware of. Comic fans, even in general, know but outside of that? I've heard one guy ask if Superman was going to be in 'The Avengers.'

It was a nice cameo type moment, and certainly speaks to Hal's character, when the ring doesn't choose Superman in favor of him. But in the grand scheme of things, it's really not that significant, other than pointing out, that these two are in the same world. Which is simplicity to begin with. Its different than Fury's use in that Fury isn't just a cameo. He introduces a concept, that of a larger universe, and Iron Man's involvement in The Avengers Initiative. He and SHIELD have a very clear role, very defined role in IRON MAN. Just seeing Superman would just have been...Superman being there, or seeing Clark's desk in another version. Hardly on the same level of concept introduction. I'd say including Amanda Waller was a nice first step in developing a shared universe, and does more for that idea than even including Alan Scott would have (though I would have loved to have seen him in GL, and he could have been used that way as well). She's basically DC's currently accepted "Nick Fury". Ultimately, though, like I said, it's not that hard to point out that they exist in the same universe. They just haven't done it yet.

I'd still say the GREEN LANTERN we got on screen was leagues darker than what we got on film. Or that might just be the way it was directed and all of the blue hues. It just seemed extremely odd in comparison to the image the first draft brings to mind.

I assume you mean that the film was darker than the script. How so?

Here are my thoughts:
-In the script, Hal is a lot cockier, a bit more direct, and a bit more of an *******, than his film counterpart
-The script features some kind of sexual/stalking overtones with Hammond and his lab assistant.
-The script features Hammond torturing Broome and using him as a puppet, and Sinestro torturing Legion
-Hal visits Abin Sur's widow in the script, there's much more made of Sur's death.
-There are sadder elements to Alan Scott's use in the script.
-There are funeral flashbacks, an exploration of the losses Hal and Carol and Hal's mother have suffered in the script
-In the script, when Hal becomes Green Lantern, there's more real world conflict to resolve
-There are more overt government cover up elements to the script
-The revenge aspect between Hammond and his father is fleshed out more
-In the script, Hammond himself is a lot more dangerous. He's not just seeking power, he also seeks to destroy Coast City and kills people.

The rest of the serious or dark elements the film presents are always utilized by the script.

With the possible exception of Parallax being a bit scarier than Legion, and Hal's emotional/relationship concept/fears about Carol being a bit deeper and more serious in the movie, the script is just a lot darker, more serious, and more mature in general in its approach than the film, which, ironically, ends up being less generic than the script. It's an odd dynamic. There's a lot to like about both versions. Had they been able to combine both approaches, it wouldn't have been perfect, but it would have been something very special.

Whedon's AVENGERS is a testament to Whedon's WONDER WOMAN, and so is his take on 'The X-Men.' Here's the thing, he's a writer lol. Writers... well, we never think anything we do is good.

I don't really see how pointing to Whedon's work on the X-Men or THE AVENGERS proves anything about the quality of his existing WONDER WOMAN project. It certainly speaks to his potential if Avengers is well done, but we already knew he had potential. That's why he was hired to develop WONDER WOMAN.

[Ultimatehero]

Now to me SUPERMAN LIVES was boss - I mean, the funeral scene? Now THAT would have built the universe. Problem is, and why I didn't focus on it, I'm unsure if budget-wise it could be done. I mean, the action was literally a comic. That's what I loved about it.

Puppets as the guardians? As said, just the whole thing irked me for some reason.

For fans? Maybe. General audience? No. They have no idea who Amanda Waller is in the least. They do know who Superman is though. Also it wasn't really Nick Fury in Iron Man that caused excitement it was these lines - "you are not alone" - signaling that other superheroes will come into play. Once again, at that point Nick Fury wasn't known to the GA. Just for an instant distance yourself as a comic book fan and just try to see what this all means for someone who's never picked up a comic book before. For example you said Amanda Waller worked greater, but GA know nothing about her.

I don't know exactly. I mean you say those things, but I kept on picturing it with a much broader color pallette. Maybe because the world was much more expansive and detailed than what wound up in the film. Maybe that the action was just more epic and seemed like panels in a comic book. Just the sheer differences between the two. The first draft seemed to go in the right direction, it got me as a non-fan to become a fan, but what came out? Still making heads and tails of it.

And there's really going to be nothing to be able to prove it. I can't post it. Share details about it or anything. Other than to say if you love what he did in the past and AVENGERS, you'd love this.

[DoomsdayApex]

As an individual who has only appreciated two of Whedon's past projects, I can't honestly say I was excited to hear about him writing the treatment for Wonder Woman.

I disliked Buffy, Angel, Dollhouse and Firefly (just saw Cabin in the Woods, and I found it to be 'meh'). His style has never struck a cord with me sadly. I undoubtedly loved X-Men and Toy Story, but that's it thus far.

[Ultimatehero]

I will say it's classic Whedon. I will also say some elements from that script seemed to have transferred over to AVENGERS. I can't say what. But in the offchance that someone else who's read it is reading this - they'll probably pick up on what it is.... for those who this might confuse - not aliens nor Loki or Thor lol.

[CConn]

As an individual who has only appreciated two of Whedon's past projects, I can't honestly say I was excited to hear about him writing the treatment for Wonder Woman.

I disliked Buffy, Angel, Dollhouse and Firefly (just saw Cabin in the Woods, and I found it to be 'meh'). His style has never struck a cord with me sadly. I undoubtedly loved X-Men and Toy Story, but that's it thus far.
I hate Whedon too!!

High five!

[CConn]

As an individual who has only appreciated two of Whedon's past projects, I can't honestly say I was excited to hear about him writing the treatment for Wonder Woman.

I disliked Buffy, Angel, Dollhouse and Firefly (just saw Cabin in the Woods, and I found it to be 'meh'). His style has never struck a cord with me sadly. I undoubtedly loved X-Men and Toy Story, but that's it thus far.
I hate Whedon too!!

High five!

[The Morningstar]

I never got into Buffy or Angel and that because it's not my kind of thing. But it was clearly well made. Firefly and Serenity are awesome though. I doubt see how anyone can doubt his ability at characterisation and juggling multiple characters.

Cabin in the Woods sounds like the perfect movie for me. Something that simultaneously celebrates and pisses all over the horror genre.

[batman strikes]

I will say it's classic Whedon. I will also say some elements from that script seemed to have transferred over to AVENGERS. I can't say what. But in the offchance that someone else who's read it is reading this - they'll probably pick up on what it is.... for those who this might confuse - not aliens nor Loki or Thor lol.

I'm going to take a shot in the dark and say that some of the elements in his Wonder Woman treatment are used for Captian America in Avengers. Am I kind of in the ballpark. :yay:

[Ultimatehero]

One area, but there are many others. That's also actually wasn't what I was thinking of lol, but definitely the case there as well.

[The Morningstar]

I imagine Loki and Ares shared similarities?

[Ultimatehero]

Close, but not exactly.

[batman strikes]

One area, but there are many others. That's also actually wasn't what I was thinking of lol, but definitely the case there as well.

Interesting, Well I guess when I finally see The Avengers I might have a better idea. Is there a reason why WB is being so secretive about Joss Whedon Wonder Woman treatment? I don't imagine they will use any of the story details since they weren't to fond of them from the get go.

[HighFivingMF]

Interesting, Well I guess when I finally see The Avengers I might have a better idea. Is there a reason why WB is being so secretive about Joss Whedon Wonder Woman treatmen? I don't imagine they will use any of the story details since they weren't to fond of them from the get go.

They keep everything secret in case they want to use a part of it later. For example, the racetrack scene in Green Lantern was partially based on a scene from the Jack Black screenplay. Some designs from earlier, unproduced Superman movies are being used for Man of Steel. Sometimes things leak though.

[batman strikes]

They keep everything secret in case they want to use a part of it later. For example, the racetrack scene in Green Lantern was partially based on a scene from the Jack Black screenplay. Some designs from earlier, unproduced Superman movies are being used for Man of Steel. Sometimes things leak though.

Makes since. But I think they really missed the boat by not using his script.

[Ultimatehero]

That could explain. Don't know. As said, I'm just really unsure what I can and can not say thus really saying nothing about it. Kevin Smith's 'Superman' leaked - no trouble there. This script is just as much in the open if you know where to look and are connected, yet nothing.

[batman strikes]

His script leaked? It must be hidden deep in the corners of the internet or know one wants to talk about. That's strange considering Justice League Mortal had all its plot details revealed not to long ago. Although a script was never put out there to download.

[Ultimatehero]

No. It's not leaked that's the thing. Kevin Smith's script leaked. The Wonder Woman script, for clarification, is out there in the open for anyone in the industry who knows where to look if they are within close proximity to it.

[DoomsdayApex]

Hey Ult, do you know anything about the MoS project? I've talked to two sources here about the film and they've been quite positive about 2013.

[DoomsdayApex]

I hate Whedon too!!

High five!

I don't like his writing style at all, but I will say this, he is an expert in dealing with team or ensemble films. I feel that The Avengers was the better fit for Joss than say... Wonder Woman.

I couldn't imagine a Wonder Woman film filled with one-liners. His style meshes far better with characters like Tony Stark/Iron Man or Wally West/Flash.

[Ultimatehero]

I really don't know anything. From a background acting gig it did look cool though and like a step up.

[Bruce_Begins]

I don't like his writing style at all, but I will say this, he is an expert in dealing with team or ensemble films. I feel that The Avengers was the better fit for Joss than say... Wonder Woman.

I couldn't imagine a Wonder Woman film filled with one-liners. His style meshes far better with characters like Tony Stark/Iron Man or Wally West/Flash.

I did not like Whedon's Buffy or Angel, but I liked Serenity, that movie showed his ability to direct ensemble cast.

He was a better fit for Avengers than Wonder Woman.

Still, if WB can get someone who can use good of the ideas from his script and write the rest of WW script, it would be a good start.

[The Morningstar]

I think Whedon is a big enough comic fan to adjust his style for Wonder Woman. He wouldn't have her busting out wise cracks that's for sure.

[jmc]

No. It's not leaked that's the thing. Kevin Smith's script leaked. The Wonder Woman script, for clarification, is out there in the open for anyone in the industry who knows where to look if they are within close proximity to it.

Is this Whedon's WW script? I thought he couldn't crack the character.

[Daniel Thompson]

Now to me SUPERMAN LIVES was boss - I mean, the funeral scene? Now THAT would have built the universe. Problem is, and why I didn't focus on it, I'm unsure if budget-wise it could be done. I mean, the action was literally a comic. That's what I loved about it.

Puppets as the guardians? As said, just the whole thing irked me for some reason.

For fans? Maybe. General audience? No. They have no idea who Amanda Waller is in the least. They do know who Superman is though. Also it wasn't really Nick Fury in Iron Man that caused excitement it was these lines - "you are not alone" - signaling that other superheroes will come into play. Once again, at that point Nick Fury wasn't known to the GA. Just for an instant distance yourself as a comic book fan and just try to see what this all means for someone who's never picked up a comic book before. For example you said Amanda Waller worked greater, but GA know nothing about her.

I don't know exactly. I mean you say those things, but I kept on picturing it with a much broader color pallette. Maybe because the world was much more expansive and detailed than what wound up in the film. Maybe that the action was just more epic and seemed like panels in a comic book. Just the sheer differences between the two. The first draft seemed to go in the right direction, it got me as a non-fan to become a fan, but what came out? Still making heads and tails of it.

And there's really going to be nothing to be able to prove it. I can't post it. Share details about it or anything. Other than to say if you love what he did in the past and AVENGERS, you'd love this.

Superman Lives sounded terrible to me, as the other projects they had lined up in the 90s with Superman.

[Ultimatehero]

Superman Lives sounded terrible to me, as the other projects they had lined up in the 90s with Superman.

Did you read the script? If not, read the script. I know many relate it to Burton's take - but that's not this thing at all.

http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/superman-lives-script.html

[Ultimatehero]

Is this Whedon's WW script? I thought he couldn't crack the character.

He did crack the character. All those rumors floating around and people who supposedly read it? Evidently and obviously didn't. Just from the rumors I've been hearing I'm the first to talk about the actual script.

As per studio - he went in the more fantastical route whereas DC wanted it darker, more grounded, and on a way way less budget.

If you meant Whedon thinking it needed more work. In an interview? Basically said the same thing about 'The Avengers' that's just a creative person's outlook.

I think Whedon is a big enough comic fan to adjust his style for Wonder Woman. He wouldn't have her busting out wise cracks that's for sure.

Diana didn't wise crack. Steve wise cracked, but there he reminded me more of Han Solo.

[Daniel Thompson]

Did you read the script? If not, read the script. I know many relate it to Burton's take - but that's not this thing at all.

http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/superman-lives-script.html

Didn't Smith himself say he wrote a bad Superman script?

[The Guard]

Yes he did. The SUPERMAN LIVES script (Smith's) is okay. The action is huge compared to anything we'd seen up to that point. There's a decent amount of comic book influence, and some nice ideas in adapting the death storyline. But structurally, it's pretty standard action movie stuff.

[HighFivingMF]

Lobo has a director lined up now.

[Ultimatehero]

Didn't Smith himself say he wrote a bad Superman script?

He said he worked with what he had and hated the things that were forced upon him - a giant spider and fighting polar bears.

All I'll say is if we got that? We wouldn't be in reboot territory right now.

[jmc]

He did crack the character. All those rumors floating around and people who supposedly read it? Evidently and obviously didn't. Just from the rumors I've been hearing I'm the first to talk about the actual script.

As per studio - he went in the more fantastical route whereas DC wanted it darker, more grounded, and on a way way less budget.

If you meant Whedon thinking it needed more work. In an interview? Basically said the same thing about 'The Avengers' that's just a creative person's outlook.



Diana didn't wise crack. Steve wise cracked, but there he reminded me more of Han Solo.

By fantastical do you mean like Greek Mythology fantasy a la Clash of the Titans?

[Ultimatehero]

You're never going to get Clash of the Titans with Wonder Woman. It's set in modern day in a modern city. That said does it have gods and monsters? Oh yeah, for sure. Definitely.

[ЯɘvlveR]

Did you read the script? If not, read the script. I know many relate it to Burton's take - but that's not this thing at all.

http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/superman-lives-script.html

does anyone know who smith would have like as his supes? I'd like to know:jedi

[TheComicbookKid]

You're never going to get Clash of the Titans with Wonder Woman. It's set in modern day in a modern city. That said does it have gods and monsters? Oh yeah, for sure. Definitely.

More like the Sorcerer's Apprentice then?


I'm going to guess some variation on the Banner/Black Widow recruitment scene is from the WW script. I seem to remember the idea of Trevor being some kind of aid worker was in his script.

[jmc]

It'd be a great shame if WB's indecisiveness with that character prevented them from making a good movie. If Avengers is as good as it's being made out to be then someone at WB is going to be banging his or her head on the table for months for not letting Whedon do his thing. Oh well, potentially another missed opportunity by WB. *shrugs*

[TheComicbookKid]

Whateves. Singer proves that not every good comic director is good for every project.

Whedon's good on paper, but stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum or through a singular person. I'm sure the support he has from Feige and his Marvel team we don't see is just as important. Just like Nolan has his wife, brother, and Wally.

[jmc]

I know but at some point though they've gotta give someone a shot, it's not always going to end up with good results but you've gotta try. Just look at Nolan, they captured lightning in a bottle and look where they are now, they've got the biggest superhero on the planet because of him. That really should have been the incentive for WB to make GL, they shouldn't have needed IM to create a GL film.

[TheComicbookKid]

I know but at some point though they've gotta give someone a shot, it's not always going to end up with good results but you've gotta try. Just look at Nolan, they captured lightning in a bottle and look where they are now, they've got the biggest superhero on the planet because of him. That really should have been the incentive for WB to make GL, they shouldn't have needed IM to create a GL film.

Marvel started scatter shot with multiple studios and now are under one umbrella .I admire their level of success though I think Avengers is their peak. Partly the spectacle and partly cause they have no diversity of product.

DC only have two more shots to start an obvious tentpole franchise clean before they'll all reboots. I'm sure it's a lot of pressure.

[mclay18]

Further breakdown, might help:

Batman is at Legacy.
Wonder Woman was at Silver.
Green Lantern is at De Line Pictures.
Unsure who has Flash.


That's not why WB isn't getting their act together -- they ultimately finance and have greenlighting authority over the DC titles. Just because one production team is working on a movie doesn't mean they have a say if a teamup movie or sequel will be produced outside of their jurisdiction.

Take the JL:M debacle. Had the WGA strike been resolved quickly and had there been a better cast involved -- we would've had that JL movie out around July 2009. When they tabled the JL project in early 2008 and after TDK hugely overperformed, they had to push back HP6 to July 2009 to guarantee a blockbuster tentpole during that period. Trust me, if WB was confident in JL:M they would've had that out despite Nolan's wishes, and HP6 would've likely stayed in the November 2008 date.

[Ultimatehero]

You missed the point ENTIRELY. I was saying why it would be difficult to have a building universe like Marvel did with easter eggs in franchise films due to studios not really keeping in contact with one another. Setting up a JL movie stand alone? Easy. Setting up a combined universe? Obviously a challenge due to breakdown. None of the companies have a clue what the other company is doing with their DC property, so any attempt to combine at this point would without a doubt be a challenge unless it's a pure stand alone.

[mclay18]

Setting up a JL movie stand alone? Easy. Setting up a combined universe? Obviously a challenge due to breakdown.

That's true. But if Joss Whedon and the reviews of The Avengers indicate, you don't necessarily need a combined universe to make a big, well-made superhero teamup film. It doesn't need to spelled out to the audience in each standalone film, nor do you have to see the films beforehand to get the full plot details.

Still, WB's made a lot of poor decisions when it comes to their DC stable. You'd figure they would be pursuing untried directors, see if they liked a certain DC character, and try to get the next Chris Nolan to revive GL or get WW up and running. Someone needs to slap sense into Robinov for not trying hard enough or looking out of the box... there's more than enough material in DC's vaults to sustain dozens of franchises and spin-offs.

[jmc]

Which is why I've been saying if you're going to do a JL then just do a JL film, don't worry about making sure things connect. It's sounds like from what I've read so far Avengers really is a stand alone film. If that's the case then WB don't need to suffocate each films potential like Marvel did in the name of continuity, just make the movies as best as you can and worry about a JL film when it comes up.

[Ultimatehero]

It could potentially work BUT keep in mind same universe even means same actors. Same actors means the films co-exist. Different actors in JLA means different seperate universe, that's possible. Everything else - numerous difficulties once they combine would be near impossible. That's most likely why WB went the different actors route, the other way means same universe which gets complicated due to numerous branches.

[mclay18]

Which is why I've been saying if you're going to do a JL then just do a JL film, don't worry about making sure things connect. It's sounds like from what I've read so far Avengers really is a stand alone film.

I don't think WB will get it until the movie comes out, makes a lot of money, and then the light bulb goes off in Robinov's head. A standalone JL film would be a helluva better plan than a Lobo movie for 2014.

[Ultimatehero]

Lobo has been in the works for a long time and I highly doubt it has any impact on JLA. And moving on it, this I know for sure, has nothing to do with Avengers. It's just, same as everything else, getting another script off the shelf and onto the screen for said company.

[jmc]

It could potentially work BUT keep in mind same universe even means same actors. Same actors means the films co-exist. Different actors in JLA means different seperate universe, that's possible. Everything else - numerous difficulties once they combine would be near impossible. That's most likely why WB went the different actors route, the other way means same universe which gets complicated due to numerous branches.

Who says it has to? Just do an elseworlds film with the same actors, just stylize it differently.

[Ultimatehero]

Just clarifying (it's late, probably spelled wrong) that even having the same actors without all the nods would make it a combined universe in audience heads. A pure solo JLA film, at this point, is all that can be done easily.

[jmc]

But do they really care? It seems the only ones who give a damn are fans about a combined universe.

[Mr. Immortal]

I'm like pages and pages too late but I wanted to respond to the insinuation that MCU films are ''safe''. It's definitely true, but only to an extent. The film content itself, sure, though that's certainly not a knock on those movies since 99.9% of all movies attempt that.

Iron Man and Hulk in particular, were very easy to adapt since Iron Man doesn't require too big a suspension of disbelief and audiences are very familiar with Hulk.

But credit should be given where it's due, Thor and Captain America were extremely ballsy projects that could have easily collapsed on themselves. Thor is difficult to adapt on so many levels, way too many to list, but they did a fantastic job with it. Likewise, Captain America was made in an age where society and younger people especially are obsessed with dark, tortured anti-heroes. Marvel Studios took a serious chance investing in those movies and then doing Avengers ahead of time. If you look at the decisions they made involving all those, on paper you'd probably have to say they were terrible decisions but they made it work by providing a quality product.

As far as DC goes, you can see how badly it can be done by looking at Green Lantern. If you think this movie is ''safe'' enough to be consumed by a casual viewer, you're thinking too much like a comic fan. The sterile power point presentation at the beginning, Reynolds' disembodied head flying through space, a disgusting but not cool or menacing villain with a grotesque head, an amorphous CG villain, not giving Hal any redeeming qualities for what feels like eternity, the (mostly) limp music, the list goes on and on.

On the upside, Marvel Studios' success should really give the DC properties on how to succeed with these hard-to-adapt characters. The Wonder Woman animated movie definitely made me a big believer in a live action film. Someone also said The Flash would be DC's equivalent to Iron Man in terms of adaptability, I could get behind that.

Anyway, cliffs: Marvel Studios is actually a perfect combination of ''safe'' and ''risky'' when it comes to the film making and business ventures. DC, hopefully, can learn from that.

[jmc]

I'll give you Thor coz that it is a trickier and riskier concept but Cap America was just so vanilla from beginning to end. Still I firmly believe those films were never given the opportunity to reach their full potential, I stand by the statements I've made before that those films feel handcuffed and that quite frankly is what ****s me the most. There's nothing worse than middle of the road movies were nothing is really wrong but at the same time nothing really sticks out as being great either. A film like The Town is a great example of that type of movie as well, you leave thinking 'that was some good film making....and yet it wasn't a good movie all around'.

[Mr. Immortal]

I'll give you Thor coz that it is a trickier and riskier concept but Cap America was just so vanilla from beginning to end. Still I firmly believe those films were never given the opportunity to reach their full potential, I stand by the statements I've made before that those films feel handcuffed and that quite frankly is what ****s me the most. There's nothing worse than middle of the road movies were nothing is really wrong but at the same time nothing really sticks out as being great either. A film like The Town is a great example of that type of movie as well, you leave thinking 'that was some good film making....and yet it wasn't a good movie all around'.

One thing I was trying to say that I don't think I did a good job of... because of the risky nature of those properties, it was imperative that they ''balance'' the riskier aspects with more grounded approaches in other areas. I feel DC should use the same caution when doing their hard-to-adapt properties.

[chamber-music]

I think people are too hard on Thor and Captain America. They were safe movies but they were intoducing audiences to the characters and their world. If you went to far from the mainstream those characters franchises might never of got off the ground.

Kevin Feige has said now that they have established the characters in the sequels they are going to push the boat out and try some different stuff.

Shane Black has said he wants to make Iron Man 3 a Tom Clancy like Thiller.

Thor 2 looks like it might go more into the mythology realm side of things.

Chris Evans has talked about possibly making Cap 2 a Political thriller.

[metaphysician]

Which is something to note: even if Avengers can be appreciated standalone, the audience still needed to be introduced to the characters, so that they'd actually have a reason to care. Doing a team movie wherein everyone on it has no real GA exposure? Bad idea.

Which is why DC needs to do setup movies: the only JLA characters with useful* GA exposure are Batman and Superman. . . and Batman's large Nolan-established fanbase isn't necessarily transferable ( note how many people applaud Dark Knight on the grounds that its more a crime drama than a super hero story ).

* Yes, Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman's GA exposure is decades out of date, and really about as relevant as the Adam West Batman.

[RachelDawes]

I think people are too hard on Thor and Captain America. They were safe movies but they were intoducing audiences to the characters and their world. If you went to far from the mainstream those characters franchises might never of got off the ground.

Kevin Feige has said now that they have established the characters in the sequels they are going to push the boat out and try some different stuff.

Shane Black has said he wants to make Iron Man 3 a Tom Clancy like Thiller.

Thor 2 looks like it might go more into the mythology realm side of things.

Chris Evans has talked about possibly making Cap 2 a Political thriller.

That's a fair point. I was just thinking something similar earlier today. I'm curious to see whether any of those big sequel ideas come off, though. IM2 had some promising potential plotlines that went nowhere.

[jmc]

I think people are too hard on Thor and Captain America. They were safe movies but they were intoducing audiences to the characters and their world. If you went to far from the mainstream those characters franchises might never of got off the ground.

Kevin Feige has said now that they have established the characters in the sequels they are going to push the boat out and try some different stuff.

Shane Black has said he wants to make Iron Man 3 a Tom Clancy like Thiller.

Thor 2 looks like it might go more into the mythology realm side of things.

Chris Evans has talked about possibly making Cap 2 a Political thriller.

Their choice of directors and having release dates before everything is set makes me think the exact opposite.

[jmc]

One thing I was trying to say that I don't think I did a good job of... because of the risky nature of those properties, it was imperative that they ''balance'' the riskier aspects with more grounded approaches in other areas. I feel DC should use the same caution when doing their hard-to-adapt properties.

Couldn't agree less, either go all out or don't bother making the movie.

[TheVileOne]

You mean like how DCE never has?

[jmc]

What's DCE got to do with anything?

[TheVileOne]

How ever since this new initiative that basically copied Marvel Studios' model has really accomplished very little. And I don't think Diane Nelson has accomplished what she said she would set out to do.

[HighFivingMF]

DC Entertainment was never meant to be a movie studio.

[CConn]

No, it was just meant to unify all of the DC properties throughout their various media outlets; comics, TV and film.

[Parker Wayne]

That's a fair point. I was just thinking something similar earlier today. I'm curious to see whether any of those big sequel ideas come off, though. IM2 had some promising potential plotlines that went nowhere.

That's because they rushed the script and the script was pretty bad so they improved many dialogue scenes.

[jmc]

How ever since this new initiative that basically copied Marvel Studios' model has really accomplished very little. And I don't think Diane Nelson has accomplished what she said she would set out to do.

It was never meant to copy Marvel's model. :confused:

[HighFivingMF]

It was never meant to copy Marvel's model. :confused:

He's on one of his complain about DC kicks. Whenever news about Green Lantern hit he'd show up. Now that news about Lobo hit he's at it again.

[cronosred]

I think people are too hard on Thor and Captain America. They were safe movies but they were intoducing audiences to the characters and their world. If you went to far from the mainstream those characters franchises might never of got off the ground.
[/COLOR]

I find it interesting that when it comes to flaws in Marvel films people are supposed to be understanding and forgiving unlike when it comes to DC films. It's ok for Thor to take place primarily on Earth and play it safe but not Green Lantern.

[Bruce_Begins]

I find it interesting that when it comes to flaws in Marvel films people are supposed to be understanding and forgiving unlike when it comes to DC films. It's ok for Thor to take place primarily on Earth and play it safe but not Green Lantern.


It is sad but true, many movie critics think this way.

[ElMariachi]

I find it interesting that when it comes to flaws in Marvel films people are supposed to be understanding and forgiving unlike when it comes to DC films. It's ok for Thor to take place primarily on Earth and play it safe but not Green Lantern.

Green Lantern was sold on the outer space cop concept. Thor, the fish out of water story. For that reason, Green Lantern was a big disapointment to alot of people.

Critics were forgiving of Thor because it was charming, funny, and well acted. It was better than GL in every way.

[metaphysician]

Also, Thor took place "mostly" on Earth in the sense that about half of it happened on Earth. Given the marketing and promotion, having about half of it take place on Asgard actually was a lot *better* a ratio than most people expected.

Whereas, by contrast, nearly all the time spent on Oa and in space, was shown in the trailers and commercials. Green Lantern *really was* almost entirely set on Earth.

[Docker2.0]

Which is something to note: even if Avengers can be appreciated standalone, the audience still needed to be introduced to the characters, so that they'd actually have a reason to care. Doing a team movie wherein everyone on it has no real GA exposure? Bad idea.

Which is why DC needs to do setup movies: the only JLA characters with useful* GA exposure are Batman and Superman. . . and Batman's large Nolan-established fanbase isn't necessarily transferable ( note how many people applaud Dark Knight on the grounds that its more a crime drama than a super hero story ).

* Yes, Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman's GA exposure is decades out of date, and really about as relevant as the Adam West Batman.

I agree 1000%! That's why I think they should tie DCU together because it maximizes their potential. TDK is really a crime drama, and not so much the real Batman but they could build on that. WW hasn't really been seen since the 70's before a lot of moviegoers were even born which is why I don't understand people put her in DC's trinity when she has really has so little exposure. Green Lantern has been more exposed than she has. DC has really exposed 2 characters to their max and that's Bat's and Supes, which is why I say do a World's Finest movie first that leads into a JLA movie. If you do a stand alone JLA movie without an A list villian, and by that I mean Darkseid, I don't think it could make as much as it could if you built it up. I honestly don't think TDK would not have made as much as it could if the Joker was not in it. Ledger's performance was amazing and I wanted to see him more than I wanted to see Batman which says a lot! I don't have a good feeling about TDKR, although it will make money, I don't think it's going to do as well as TDK. I also think the GA will expect more from DC, now that Marvel has upped the ante with the Avengers, meaning a shared universe. I know the GA don't really know the difference between the two companies but I'm sure they'll wonder why Spiderman doesn't show up in a Superman after credit scene, if you get my point.

[Docker2.0]

No, it was just meant to unify all of the DC properties throughout their various media outlets; comics, TV and film.

You are right, but they really haven't done a thing since they were created.

[CConn]

You are right, but they really haven't done a thing since they were created.
Yes, they have.

They've rebooted the entire DC Universe, started up a line of a half dozen digital-first comic series, they've produced multiple animated series in GL and Beware the Batman, they're producing multiple live action TV shows like Human Target and the proposed Arrow, they've developed multiple video games in Arkham City, DCU Universe Online, and Lego Batman 2, and in films have produced Watchmen, Jonah Hex, GL, RED and Man of Steel.

[Docker2.0]

Yes, they have.

They've rebooted the entire DC Universe, started up a line of a half dozen digital-first comic series, they've produced multiple animated series in GL and Beware the Batman, they're producing multiple live action TV shows like Human Target and the proposed Arrow, they've developed multiple video games in Arkham City, DCU Universe Online, and Lego Batman 2, and in films have produced Watchmen, Jonah Hex, GL, RED and Man of Steel.

:lmao:

Well I meant movies actually. But when it comes to what they've done in that department, it's no different than what WB has always done, with the exception of GL. They always seem to take some of the obscure characters or Vertigo titles and make movies but yet seem to stay away from their big guns other than Bats and Supes. I've heard references that although they are all under WB that they are under different divisions of the company and that's why they can't meet or whatever, but I don't understand why WW who hasn't been seen live action since the mid 70's can't get a tid bit of exposure or something even in a now cancelled Smallville show. :doh:

[CConn]

But, that's what we were saying. They're not really meant to do anything differently than WB has. They're just meant to unite all of the DC properties under one banner.