Where did DC/WB go wrong? - Part 1

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is Here

[Mondragon]

How did they drop the ball on the evident JL movie?



Why couldn't they pull this off?

[Tobias]

Originally Posted by roach

the only thing keeping SR from having a sequel was the the cost to make.

This is true. WB detrmined the cost to make Superman vs the receipts from a Superman film and decided it wasn't finacially feasible. So they shelved the franchise.

[CConn]

Personally, what impressed me most about Superman Returns was its art direction and cinematography. The one major complaint I always had with Bryan Singer was that his films lacked visual flair and really awe-inspiring cinematography. With SR, he improved on his visual work in X1 and2 by leaps and bounds.

The story was, admittedly, odd for a superhero movie. But at the same time, it was refreshing. It wasn't the same standard plot formula that's been used in STM, Batman Begins, Spider-Man, etc., etc. And the subtlety and emotional beats seemed more similar to a Burton Batman movie than any other superhero film - which I did enjoy.

Most importantly, it's characterization of Superman gave him a real sense of humanity and the proper amount of imperfection that is often missing in superhero movies. As someone who's not a big fan of the original Superman movies, or Superman in general, I left the theater pretty interested and pretty invested in Superman as a character, and that's really what every Superman movie should do.

Of course it had flaws. The fact it's a semi-sequel to the originals hurts the film I feel - it feels like its a sequel to a film that doesn't even really exist, and that muddles the continuity throughout the film. Spacey's Luthor was great, but the script really limited him from being TOO threatening, and that whole schtick with a super villain only having a girlfriend and a handful of henchmen to help him is inherently unrealistic and downright campy at times.

[akfj]

Originally Posted by Mondragon

How did they drop the ball on the evident JL movie?



Why couldn't they pull this off?

They still can. They have eternity to do it.

[DoomsdayApex]

Originally Posted by akfj

They still can. They have eternity to do it.

Wonder Woman and Flash to be made first though.

I wouldn't mind if WB/DC took five years to make a JL movie.

[CConn]

Personally, I'm not all that excited to see a JLA movie. I've always much preferred to see those heroes separately than together.

[DoomsdayApex]

I'm not too excited right now either. The Avengers deluded a Justice League adaptation, but eventually interest will grow down the road.

[marcvader]

I'd like to see them separate as well as together.

[chiefchirpa]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Like I said, me personally, I thought IM2 was not significantly better than GL, in any shape or form.

Your opinion is still among the minority and of course, it’s not wrong. Even if IM2 is far from a stellar movie, IM is clearly not a debased franchise after IM2. Non-comicbook reading people are still looking forward to the next IM, the actors are enthusiastic to do another round. GL as a franchise is “tainted” after GL. Admit it, your interest of watching the GL universe "inflates" what you perceive over the quality of GL. Unbiased people don’t see the “magic” as they can see the flaw of GL instantly. They see GL is just another cartoon/comic turned for live action. Little substance, just cartoon drawing turned into living men.

I never indicated otherwise. I said both suffered script issues, but Green Lantern's actors did a far better job than what was expected.

And I wouldn't praise Cheadle. Howard might have been the lesser actor but he had more chemistry (w/RDJ) and charisma for the role of Rhodey than Don did in IM2.

If GL script turned out to be that bad (it was), then I pity the GL actors.

But better acting performance is better acting performance, bad script notwithstanding. Script is even somewhat unimportant in IM2 that RDJ acted some of his performances unscripted as he interpreted some of the scenes improptu.

Nope. Both are on the same level. So far, Blake and Scarlett have had only one role that was considered (from what I've seen) performance-worthy. And if you claim that ScarJo did a far better in IM2 than Blake did in GL, then you're loco.

Vicky Christina Barcelona and Lost in Translation is where Scarlett have shown that she could act. Where have Blake Lively shown she could act? The Town? She's actually channeling herself, when she's high on crack.

[Boom]

I never really cared for the Justice League, personally.

[CConn]

Honestly, a straight up Batman/Superman movie would interest me more purely because you would have the time to really explore the parallels between the two characters, and really get into character introspection.

[DoomsdayApex]

Originally Posted by chiefchirpa

Your opinion is still among the minority and of course, it’s not wrong. Even if IM2 is far from a stellar movie, IM is clearly not a debased franchise after IM2. Non-comicbook reading people are still looking forward to the next IM, the actors are enthusiastic to do another round. GL as a franchise is “tainted” after GL. Admit it, your interest of watching the GL universe "inflates" what you perceive over the quality of GL. Unbiased people don’t see the “magic” as they can see the flaw of GL instantly. They see GL is just another cartoon/comic turned for live action. Little substance, just cartoon drawing turned into living men.

Absolutely not. You can't allow yourself to think that way, or Batman Begins & The Dark Knight would have never happened after Batman & Robin. Under the right direction, Green Lantern can be just as mainstream as Batman and Superman. It should have been DC's next cash cow, but they f**ked up big time with the script, CGI/SFX and marketing. Thanks to their 'strategy', the film was a clusterf**k and we've probably seen the last of Green Lantern on the big screen for a long time. Which is a shame really because the character brought numerous aspects, elements, dimensions, characters, etc that most other CBM did not have.

If GL script turned out to be that bad (it was), then I pity the GL actors.

But better acting performance is better acting performance, bad script notwithstanding. Script is even somewhat unimportant in IM2 that RDJ acted some of his performances unscripted as he interpreted some of the scenes improptu.

Green Lantern (collectively) had the better performances in terms of supporting cast, but yes, RDJ easily manhandled both IM2 and GL. He's a gifted actor.

That isn't to say that Ryan Reynolds is a mediocre actor though.

Vicky Christina Barcelona and Lost in Translation is where Scarlett have shown that she could act. Where have Blake Lively shown she could act? The Town? She's actually channeling herself, when she's high on crack.

Lost in Translation is the only film where I found ScarJo's acting not to be subpar and bland as of late.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona was a film where ScarJo benefited from Javier Bardem's, Rebecca Hall's and Penelope Cruz's acting and Woody Allen's script. I did not find Scarlett Johansson's performance any where near fantastic or memorable, but she wasn't terrible either.

Maybe so, but Lively wasn't high on-set.

Blake, herself, isn't a stellar actress but at least she's starting to pick up stronger scripts (The Town, Savages and Hick).

[Thundercrack85]

It really shouldn't be this hard. Just make a good Superman movie, then Batman, have a crossover and then expand on that.

[Bruce_Begins]

According to many posters here as well as Marvel fans it is very hard for WB to integrate the DC Universe, or even make a World's finest movie featuring Batman and Superman. Many DC fans feel the same way.

DC heroes cannot exist together in one Universe, even Nolan thinks so (before that Singer was of the same opinion). Even Martin Campbell, ruled out any cameo appearances of other DC heroes in his GL movie, saying that he does not want it.

There is a reason this has not been done before. General Audience does not care either.

[Thundercrack85]

I believe it would be difficult to make characters like Wonder Woman, Superman and Batman work on the same screen.

But it can be done with at least some of them. Batman and Superman can be done.

[RoughNTumble]

A justice league movie could be amazing if done right, but it's so much easier to screw up than individual hero movies.

We dodged a bullet with justice league mortal.

[Thundercrack85]

I still say a Superman Batman crossover would be the best way to go. A litmus test.

[thorstone]

1. Green Lantern was heavily CGI and people are tired of that.
2. Green Lantern casting.
3. Heroes are only as interesting as their villains (thus Spiderman and Batman movies are easy compared to Aquaman, Flash, and Wonder Woman).
4. Superman Returns violated issue three when the character has powerful villains like Darkseid, Kalibak, and Doomsday.
5. Man of Steel once again has a boring villain.

[Thundercrack85]

With a good writer, most villains can be compelling. Lex Luthor done right, is one of the most interesting, complex villains. Or a uninteresting loser obsessed with real estate like in Superman Returns.

[DoomsdayApex]

Originally Posted by thorstone

1. Green Lantern was heavily CGI and people are tired of that.
2. Green Lantern casting.
3. Heroes are only as interesting as their villains (thus Spiderman and Batman movies are easy compared to Aquaman, Flash, and Wonder Woman).
4. Superman Returns violated issue three when the character has powerful villains like Darkseid, Kalibak, and Doomsday.
5. Man of Steel once again has a boring villain.

1.) ...Then Avatar would have flopped, by your logic.
2.) The casting was fine.
5.) Says who? You? Zod is an interesting villain, and the perfect one for an origin story.

[roach]

Originally Posted by thorstone

1. Green Lantern was heavily CGI and people are tired of that.
2. Green Lantern casting.
3. Heroes are only as interesting as their villains (thus Spiderman and Batman movies are easy compared to Aquaman, Flash, and Wonder Woman).
4. Superman Returns violated issue three when the character has powerful villains like Darkseid, Kalibak, and Doomsday.
5. Man of Steel once again has a boring villain.

wow...this is so full of wrong

[CConn]

Originally Posted by thorstone

1. Green Lantern was heavily CGI and people are tired of that.
2. Green Lantern casting.
3. Heroes are only as interesting as their villains (thus Spiderman and Batman movies are easy compared to Aquaman, Flash, and Wonder Woman).
4. Superman Returns violated issue three when the character has powerful villains like Darkseid, Kalibak, and Doomsday.
5. Man of Steel once again has a boring villain.

Yup, you're ungodly wrong.

[craigdbfan]

After TDKR I'd love if DC/WB would follow a similar blueprint to what Marvel studios has been doing in setting up a world where all these characters exist and can eventually star in a team up. That doesn't mean the style has to be exactly like the Marvel studio films but rather take a tip in how they created this world where it's all possible.

We've had enough success/failed attempts at solo projects for most of the big DC heroes at WB that it's time that they broaden their horizons and give something like this a shot so we may see the likes of Wonder Woman, Flash, & Martian Manhunter.

Not to mention that a strategy like this can really exemplify why some of these characters that have been untouched for live action in the DC vault why they're great to most of the world. Batman and Superman are of course key to this so they would need their individual films beforehand but it's something I would completely support.

[DoomsdayApex]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

1.) ...Then Avatar would have flopped, by your logic.
2.) The casting was fine.
5.) Says who? You? Zod is an interesting villain, and the perfect one for an origin story.

Edit: 3-4

I still can't grasp the stupidity behind them... no matter how many times I read them.