BvS All Things Superman and Batman: An Open Discussion - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 47

[Marvin]

The wonder of the MCU is that they have made household names and lucrative franchises out of B heroes.

I am not an avid comic book follower. But I was always aware of all the DC characters and had never heard of Iron Man or CA or Thor or Widow before the MCU. In terms of comic popularity and fame, DC far outstrips Marvel.

But Marvel reversed that with their MCU by making blockbusters out of B heroes. IMHO.

Not really a wonder if you look at how they went about it.
Same deal with how they've made a ratings hit out of a b list thing like shield.

Props to them but I personally wouldn't call it any sort of wonder.
I'm looking forward to seeing just how stand alone guardians will continue to be if at all.

I personally have alot more praise for the 'tv' creators who have made Arrow arguable the best the tv genre has ever seen and without the tie in.

That being said, can't fault success, it's not easy out there.

 

[The Endless]

Well that's the thing. Feige and Marvel had the faith in their characters to take out a loan to fund Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk. If those two films bombed... the cinematic landscape would be very different. There wouldn't be an MCU. There wouldn't have been an Avengers. But they took a leap of faith and we rewarded.

Why can't WB/DC have that kinda faith in their characters? Seems they didn't even have the faith in a solo Superman sequel and had to create a story that involved Batman. Which could turn out to be brilliant, hopefully. But still, i'd have liked to have seen another solo Supes film.

 

[Lencho01]

Yep. I think this article right here sums up where the MCU started.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/22/entertainment/et-comic22

Ha! I remember when it looked like Ant-Man would get his own film before Avengers. I think that changed due to Wright working on it and the success of the first Iron Man film, thus Iron Man 2.

 

[SpideyFan866]

GL felt like a tv show.

And when you put tv people in charge of a movie, like Greg Berlanti, Michael Green, and Marc Guggenheim, that is what we were always gonna get.

This is an inaccurate and unfair statement. Specifically, in regard to Berlanti, Green, and Guggenheim. The script that they wrote for Green Lantern was universally praised, and was largely what got people excited in the first place. Not only was it a great GL script, but it did a solid job of setting up the DCCU. But....... it was thrown out and rewritten once Martin Campbell came on board, leaving the trash that we eventually got in the film.


Oh, and what they've done on Arrow is better than (at the very least) 1/3rd of the films DC AND Marvel (MS or other studios) have put out in the last 15 years.

 

[Crimson King]

What MS has accomplished is impressive, but I wouldn't say WB lacks faith in their characters. The mindset of a startup like MS and an established juggernaut like WB are different. Marvel was forced to take chances and those chances paid off. WB isn't forced to take chances and after the lukewarm GL, they became gun shy about anything that wasn't Superman/Batman. It sucks for fans, but that's just how they do business.

 

[Lencho01]

Well that's the thing. Feige and Marvel had the faith in their characters to take out a loan to fund Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk. If those two films bombed... the cinematic landscape would be very different. There wouldn't be an MCU. There wouldn't have been an Avengers. But they took a leap of faith and we rewarded.

Why can't WB/DC have that kinda faith in their characters? Seems they didn't even have the faith in a solo Superman sequel and had to create a story that involved Batman. Which could turn out to be brilliant, hopefully. But still, i'd have liked to have seen another solo Supes film.

WB has faith in ways to make money. MOS didn't turn out exactly how they wanted, but they knew adding another famous superhero would create enough interest to help them make more money the first go-around.

 

[super85]

Green Lantern was terrible on every single level. So, so bad. It didn't have any redeeming features. It's best to pretend it never existed.

I thought it was the same level cheesy averege-comicbook movie as many others. Like the Fantastic Four films , or the Thor films, or the first Wolverine. Nothing special and nothing particulary memorable. This meaning the extended cut that was on the bluray. The theatrical-version felt a bit rushed and fiddled with, like many other summer films. I liked Mark Strong as Sinestro, and I thought the relationship between Hal and Carrol was one of more decent ones in this genre.

 

[kguillou]

I think a big part of GL's failure was the villain. I mean, I know Hector Hammond was a part of Hal's origin in the comics but man, whose idea was it to make a midget with a big head the main villain in the first movie? Let's be honest he looked and acted ridiculous. If the movie had a more badass, formidable villain, it would have greatly elevated that movie. They should have just went straight for Sinestro.

 

[Gee]

Well that's the thing. Feige and Marvel had the faith in their characters to take out a loan to fund Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk. If those two films bombed... the cinematic landscape would be very different. There wouldn't be an MCU. There wouldn't have been an Avengers. But they took a leap of faith and we rewarded.

Why can't WB/DC have that kinda faith in their characters? Seems they didn't even have the faith in a solo Superman sequel and had to create a story that involved Batman. Which could turn out to be brilliant, hopefully. But still, i'd have liked to have seen another solo Supes film.

Why the importance of solo films? Can't WB/DC do differently by featuring at least two superheroes (not necessarily big team-ups like JL or TT) in a very same film? You know, like they do in comics.

 

[The Batman]

This is an inaccurate and unfair statement. Specifically, in regard to Berlanti, Green, and Guggenheim. The script that they wrote for Green Lantern was universally praised, and was largely what got people excited in the first place. Not only was it a great GL script, but it did a solid job of setting up the DCCU. But....... it was thrown out and rewritten once Martin Campbell came on board, leaving the trash that we eventually got in the film.

Yup. Blame WB and Geoff Johns for butchering GL. They had a decent first draft that they absolutely ruined because they had no faith in it, so they had it rewritten to copy every trope of a modern CBM.

Then, they hired a director who was completely wrong for the project. A lot of DC fans try and downplay the MCU's success, but one thing they know how to do is hire the write director for a project.

 

[Chrisbarnes182]

Oh, and what they've done on Arrow is better than (at the very least) 1/3rd of the films DC AND Marvel (MS or other studios) have put out in the last 15 years.

This I agree with, I am only 6 episodes into season 2 but Arrow is by far one of the best comic adaptations film of otherwise I have seen.

Has there been any discussion on here of bringing the TV arrow into any future Justice League movies? This is something I would definitely like to see happen.

 

[Crimson King]

Then, they hired a director who was completely wrong for the project. A lot of DC fans try and downplay the MCU's success, but one thing they know how to do is hire the write director for a project.

Until Alan Taylor

 

[Pickleweasel]

If MoS took place before Green Lantern they need to explain why Superman was not helping out in the fight against Fartallax. This isn't an Iron Man situation, Superman can fly across the world in a few seconds.

You know, the original script for GL actually had the Abin Sur's ring pass by Clark Kent's desk at the daily planet to consider him.

Superman isn't in it because it is a Green Lantern movie problem solved.

Mostly because I think that's way too confusing for the audience. To go back in time right after you launched a connected universe is a bad move, IMO. Plus, it would make it seem really weird that Superman didn't come help with Parallax.

"The audience" would not care at all. "The audience" would most likely have no idea the two movies are connected at all if they don't put in the same characters.

 

[DA_Champion]

The first few seasons of Smallville were very good too, it had 8 million viewers and was a pop culture phenomenon. Lois and Clark, back in the early 1990s, reached 20 million viewers and was a show everybody talked about.

When I read people tell me that Arrow is amazing, there's so much baggage that makes it hard for me to believe. I immediately think to all the internet fanboys who tell me that the DCAU DVD movies are very good and better than the live-action movies.

 

[Lencho01]

Am I the only one who felt the ending with Sinestro made no sense at all within the context of the film?

I once read the comment that GL might've worked better or at least Hal more likeable if he was more The Right Stuff and less Top Gun.

 

[Crimson King]

"The audience" would not care at all. "The audience" would most likely have no idea the two movies are connected at all if they don't put in the same characters.

Then what is the point of a connected universe?

 

[Lencho01]

The first few seasons of Smallville were very good too, it had 8 million viewers and was a pop culture phenomenon. Lois and Clark, back in the early 1990s, reached 20 million viewers and was a show everybody talked about.

When I read people tell me that Arrow is amazing, there's so much baggage that makes it hard for me to believe. I immediately think to all the internet fanboys who tell me that the DCAU DVD movies are very good and better than the live-action movies.

"Amazing" isn't how I'd describe Arrow. The second season is a lot more entertaining than the first because they pretty much dropped the whole "It has to be 'real' and 'gritty'! Just like Nolan's Batman!" schtick. I smile at the ridiculous levels it's gone to now.

 

[Fizicks]

This is an inaccurate and unfair statement. Specifically, in regard to Berlanti, Green, and Guggenheim. The script that they wrote for Green Lantern was universally praised, and was largely what got people excited in the first place. Not only was it a great GL script, but it did a solid job of setting up the DCCU. But....... it was thrown out and rewritten once Martin Campbell came on board, leaving the trash that we eventually got in the film.

I was never aware of that. Man it really makes me sad.

 

[Marvin]

My biggest issue with the GL film is how much of John's yellow monster crap is in it. Something like First Flight just is what it is(classic GL) but I suppose that was before all that crazy retconning that went down in the lantern universe lately.

 

[Marvin]

Well that's the thing. Feige and Marvel had the faith in their characters to take out a loan to fund Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk. If those two films bombed... the cinematic landscape would be very different. There wouldn't be an MCU. There wouldn't have been an Avengers. But they took a leap of faith and we rewarded.

Why can't WB/DC have that kinda faith in their characters? Seems they didn't even have the faith in a solo Superman sequel and had to create a story that involved Batman. Which could turn out to be brilliant, hopefully. But still, i'd have liked to have seen another solo Supes film.

Marvel chose those two properties at the time cause they were a studio with money but no big properties left to fund productions for. WB has been in a similar situation only they chose 2 different properties(followed by various others). Safe to say marvel chose their two biggest names at the time, if there were as bold as people suggest then they would have chose antman and the raccoon, if they had spidey and xmen(something WB has in it's own way), they would have chosen those. Granted hulk fell short and they put it on the back burner...that is until they found their golden ticket in the form of 'tie in'.

That is also to put into question just how much more success it to be found in selling the audience a linked universe to rather tying everything to your biggest brand. If Heath or Bale showed up at the end of Lantern the way Loki or Stark has shown up in various stingers, would it have made 'Cap/Thor' money and been a 'success'? Hard to say, the GA is a fickle thing imo.

And please stop with the, they didn't have enough success to make a solo superman sequel. The film made a crap ton more than just about any cbm start up that has become before it(minus spidey) A good deal more than Batman's start up(and he's the/thier biggest). It's an opportunistic statement at best and people are jumping on it any chance they can. Did anyone say Marvel didn't have enough faith in Cap/Thor before launching the big crossover? Or did people just see the 'genius' it in... I for one have never understood why people think MOS was supposed to make a crap ton more money than it did. I mean I get why people expected TDKR to but no one expected Begins to. Yes it's superman but what did the last superman make(also superman)? I see why everyone expects the next bond film to make a crap tone but who expected that of Casino Royal?
If anything the studio see's alot more pros to going about this venture than the traditional sequel route. Why let marvel have all the novelty success? So fans can continue to rub it in their faces? The DCU land scape will be alot more viable after a BvS film than a MOS2 film, period.
Just has it has been for Marvel. There was no guardians after Ironman 2 but after avengers? It's viable. If anything WB might not be so confident in simply relaunching batman post nolan and bale, and to do it this way almost guarantees massive success. That statement I can get behind.

This is an inaccurate and unfair statement. Specifically, in regard to Berlanti, Green, and Guggenheim. The script that they wrote for Green Lantern was universally praised, and was largely what got people excited in the first place. Not only was it a great GL script, but it did a solid job of setting up the DCCU. But....... it was thrown out and rewritten once Martin Campbell came on board, leaving the trash that we eventually got in the film.

The internet tends to see recognizable names and vision tends goes red. The goyer effect if you will.

Oh, and what they've done on Arrow is better than (at the very least) 1/3rd of the films DC AND Marvel (MS or other studios) have put out in the last 15 years.

I partially think this has something to do with the serialized format of TV. Countless interviews with the creators talking about all the 'live' adjustments they've made based on fan feed back and such. Then there is the ravager situation. Sick of Laurel, well here's the new love interest..etc. Movies don't tend to have that luxury.
Safe to say as great as the show has been, it wasn't all that it is in it's first 2 and half hours but rather the entirety of it's run and due to it's build up. An IM tv show would no doubt enjoy the same benefits.

 

[snpklsdmbldr]

must be the only one here who thought GL is not that bad, not saying it's good either. for some reason I think a lot of people just joined a hate bandwagon on that movie.

 

[super85]

Nah snpklsdmbldr, I just defended the film a bit in the previous page of the thread. I think it (especially the extended cut that should have been released in theatres)is a ok comicbook movie, it just wasn't nearly as good as it should have been.

 

[The Endless]

Marvel chose those two properties at the time cause they were a studio with money but no big properties left to fund productions for. WB has been in a similar situation only they chose 2 different properties(followed by various others). Safe to say marvel chose their two biggest names at the time, if there were as bold as people suggest then they would have chose antman and the raccoon, if they had spidey and xmen(something WB has in it's own way), they would have chosen those. Granted hulk fell short and they put it on the back burner...that is until they found their golden ticket in the form of 'tie in'.

Marvel didn't have the money. They had to procure loans to fund IM and TIH. They were basically big budget indie movies.

Iron Man and Hulk may have been their biggest "brands" at the time. But Iron Man wasn't a famous character before his movie. Hulk had a stinker with Ang Lee's film. Huge risks really. If those films bombed there would be no MCU and there probably would have been financial repercussions for the Marvel brand as a whole.

And please stop with the, they didn't have enough success to make a solo superman sequel. The film made a crap ton more than just about any cbm start up that has become before it(minus spidey) A good deal more than Batman's start up(and he's the/thier biggest). It's an opportunistic statement at best and people are jumping on it any chance they can. Did anyone say Marvel didn't have enough faith in Cap/Thor before launching the big crossover? Or did people just see the 'genius' it in... I for one have never understood why people think MOS was supposed to make a crap ton more money than it did. I mean I get why people expected TDKR to but no one expected Begins to. Yes it's superman but what did the last superman make(also superman)? I see why everyone expects the next bond film to make a crap tone but who expected that of Casino Royal?
If anything the studio see's alot more pros to going about this venture than the traditional sequel route. Why let marvel have all the novelty success? So fans can continue to rub it in their faces? The DCU land scape will be alot more viable after a BvS film than a MOS2 film, period.
Just has it has been for Marvel. There was no guardians after Ironman 2 but after avengers? It's viable. If anything WB might not be so confident in simply relaunching batman post nolan and bale, and to do it this way almost guarantees massive success. That statement I can get behind.

MoS obviously was a success. 670 million ain't nothing to laugh at. But the fact is, a Thor film gave it a run for it's money. The Winter Soldier is set to outgross it.

Captain America outgrossing Superman... are you kidding me?

Warner Bros expected MoS to be a bigger success than it was. With Nolan's name all over the marketing, i'd say they were expecting at least 800 million from MoS.

And let's not pretend that they had a plan to introduce Batman all along. Bollox. If MoS went out and made upwards of 800 million the next film would be a solo Superman film. I'm sure of it.

But WB can now kill 2 birds with one stone. They can boost a Superman film and reboot Batman at the same time. I'd have liked to have seen another solo Superman adventure and a new solo Batman vision. But i ain't gonna lie, i'm excited for Batman/Superman. Who isn't?

 

[snpklsdmbldr]

Nah snpklsdmbldr, I just defended the film a bit in the previous page of the thread. I think it (especially the extended cut that should have been released in theatres)is a ok comicbook movie, it just wasn't nearly as good as it should have been.

yup, to me is was "just okay", not THAT bad and not good either. fanboys just love to exaggerate, oh well that's not even news.

 

[Lencho01]

A cameo like this would've been interesting to see. Story takes place early in Superman's career. Not even called Superman yet...

Superman tells Mongul he's turning him over to the proper authorities. GL shows up saying he was wondering when he and Superman's paths would cross. Also, complements him on his signal, but he's not a caped crusader jumping on rooftops for a police commissioner. t: