BvS Batman/Superman Pushed Back to 2016 - Part 1

[Poni_Boy]

actually DC's Kevin Feige is Diane Nelson.

As far as allocation of funds? Yes and no. I'm not talking about their job description on paper, but their purpose. No one at DCE has say-so in terms of feature film budgets. That's all WB. Nelson is in charge of DC as a brand across all of its platforms but the CCO position created for Johns was supposed to act as a segwey between the business side of DCE (Nelson) and the implementation of characters across mediums. Basically Johns and Nelson together were supposed to do the job Feige does (again, sans film production budgets) but Johns specifically was supposed to manage quality control of transitioning their characters from comics into other mediums. WB put a lot of stock in Johns and the GL movie was the litmus test. There's no telling if DCE would/could have spurned a DC Studios type company if GL would have succeeded, but that looks like what they were going for.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Well DCE is still there and going strong but WB clearly took back all creative control of their DC movies. I don't really follow the company closely but I haven't seen or heard of Johns being involved in anything major outside of the comics world since GL came out.

That being said, I think WB had the right idea doing what they did. If you can't find someone who's well versed in studio politics AND has a deep knowledge of your brand/characters like Feige at Marvel, you don't just stick some random person in a position like his. They just needed someone better than Johns. From what I noticed he can't hold his own in business meetings with people more powerful/important than he is. No bueno. You need a ball buster.

 

[fake]

So it's still there in name, right?

I don't blame them for cleaning a little house, after GL. I also don't necessarily think someone who's primarily a comic person is a good person for movies....even comic movies.

Comic people are really good for getting the characters right, especially as consultants during the movie. Unless, of course, it is Mark Millar being consulted

 

[Lord]

So it's still there in name, right?

I don't blame them for cleaning a little house, after GL. I also don't necessarily think someone who's primarily a comic person is a good person for movies....even comic movies.

I actually find it funny that Johns did a great film in the form of a comic book: Green Lantern: Secret Origin, yet when it comes to the actual film only threw things like Paralax

 

[fake]

I actually find it funny that Johns did a great film in the form of a comic book: Green Lantern: Secret Origin, yet when it comes to the actual film only threw things like Paralax

The thing is Secret Origin worked really well as it tied into everything that was happening in the comics at that time (the build up to Blackest Night and the colored Corps). That was a bit too much to introduce in the movies itself. The origin they should have adapted for the movies was "Emerald Dawn" IMO.

That would have been a great trilogy - "Emerald Dawn" first movie. "The Fall of Sinestro" in the second movie, and "The Sinestro Corps War" in the third. One big storyline running through all the movies. They somewhat threw the audience into the deep end of the GL mythology within the first 3 minutes of the GL movie.

 

[Lord]

Secret Origin was the first GL comic i ever read besides team-ups like Justice League and i found it very easy to follow, the film actually took a lot from Emerald Dawn, replacing that generic alien being with Parasite, and i honestly think that the storyline was too weak. The film would have vastly improved if they had explored the Hal/ Sinestro dynamic and made it more of a "buddy cop", the stuff with Carol was also more interesting and decidedly more deep in the comic, and Hal wasn't a *****e there, he was a guy who just wanted to do what he loved, yet had various external factos and even people he knows telling telling him he couldn't.

 

[Loki882]

How much control did Geoff Johns actually have over the GL movie anyway? I seriously doubt that he was the one driving that mess.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Geoff Johns did not actually have any creative say in Green Lantern. It would be like if one of us got named as producer, we'd have a lot of knowledge and suggestions. But no one cares, because we don't make films.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

The only reason he was there was to make it seem they were "going the Marvel route". But Geoff Johns became CCO February 18th 2010. Green Lantern had been in pre-production for a year already and started filming March 2010. How much creative say could he have had in those two weeks before filming besides being used as a sounding board for the names of planets like Ryut etc?

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

He better be, DC Comics have an annual softball game. I don't think he got a name on his desk, he might have got one of those sticky "Hi, my name is" tags though

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

I have a feeling their office was like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH-eAI5-g9s

 

[Doctor Jones]

Am I the only one tired of the whole, "They're not a comic book movie studio, they make all films first and foremost" argument? So we're defending their mistakes? Well of course they're not a comic book movie studio. That does not give them the excuse to be ****ing up as much as they have been. It's management and the innate understanding of how these properties work. Which barely seems to be there.

They're afraid to take risks. I can appreciate their risk of Green Lantern but that doesn't matter now considering how that turned out. Now this push back will hopefully be for the best when we see the thing in 2016, but in the meantime, if they are so focused on getting their DC properties off the ground, they should at least appear to make that a priority. I'm not gonna pretend to be an expert on what goes on behind the scenes, but let's hope all of this is for the best. I like that they're giving some of their properties television time, but I'm still flabbergasted that they've owned DC comics for over 30 years and they still don't appear as serious as they want to come off as in how they want to treat their comic properties. I understand in those 30 years there are many factors and considerations (such as the drought of quality comic book films of the 90's) that may have prevented any plans to elaborate on more comic book movies. But just think: These were once the people who in part made us believe a man could fly in 1978. You would think these would be the people Marvel would want to catch up to. Not the other way around.

But if they want to compete with Marvel, that's fine. Hopefully this is a clean slate for them and when 2016 hits that will represent a WB who will actually put out consistent quality material in the years to come. If they don't then the whole premise for that argument won't even be an argument anymore.

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

Am I the only one tired of the whole, "They're not a comic book movie studio, they make all films first and foremost" argument? So we're defending their mistakes? Well of course they're not a comic book movie studio. That does not give them the excuse to be ****ing up as much as they have been. It's management and the innate understanding of how these properties work. Which barely seems to be there.

They're afraid to take risks. I can appreciate their risk of Green Lantern but that doesn't matter now considering how that turned out. Now this push back will hopefully be for the best when we see the thing in 2016, but in the meantime, if they are so focused on getting their DC properties off the ground, they should at least appear to make that a priority. I'm not gonna pretend to be an expert on what goes on behind the scenes, but let's hope all of this is for the best. I like that they're giving some of their properties television time, but I'm still flabbergasted that they've owned DC comics for over 30 years and they still don't appear as serious as they want to come off as in how they want to treat their comic properties. I understand in those 30 years there are many factors and considerations (such as the drought of quality comic book films of the 90's) that may have prevented any plans to elaborate on more comic book movies. But just think: These were once the people who in part made us believe a man could fly in 1978. You would think these would be the people Marvel would want to catch up to. Not the other way around.

But if they want to compete with Marvel, that's fine. Hopefully this is a clean slate for them and when 2016 hits that will represent a WB who will actually put out consistent quality material in the years to come. If they don't then the whole premise for that argument won't even be an argument anymore.

No I agree. Look at Fox and Sony. They aren't in the business to just make CBM but they do.

 

[Primal Slayer]

Thats why WB should make a DC studio to make those movies. It would be like Disney only coming out with the occasional Marvel movie now that they own them.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Thats why WB should make a DC studio to make those movies. It would be like Disney only coming out with the occasional Marvel movie now that they own them.

Except it's not even close to being that simple.

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

Why not take the writers of the DC animated movies...

...and have them write live action DC films?

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

They're mostly crap, and ripping off other writers, who would be better served adapting their own work.

 

[Masone]

Basically, it seems the Marvel is just better at putting out movies of their comic properties than WB/DC is...they just are. But at the end of the year, WB is still the most successful movie studio anyway, so why bother trying to 'outdo' Marvel as long as they're just doing their part for the whole?

They oughta take the DC approach and be more cautious, ease up on that acceleration. Right now they are focused more on quantity than quality. I'd rather DC continue to focus on the latter.

 

[BH/HHH]

Why not take the writers of the DC animated movies...

...and have them write live action DC films?

Would be cool but there's too much snobbery in the movie business unfortunately.

 

[fake]

No I agree. Look at Fox and Sony. They aren't in the business to just make CBM but they do.

Fox and Sony need to make those movies. Else they lose the rights and they go to their competing studio i.e. Marvel/Disney.

WB has no obligation to make DC movies as the rights are not going anywhere even if they keep all characters benched forever.

 

[Mjölnir]

They oughta take the DC approach and be more cautious, ease up on that acceleration. Right now they are focused more on quantity than quality. I'd rather DC continue to focus on the latter.

I have a hard time seeing how a movie studio making two movies a year is focusing too much on quantity.

 

[Mjölnir]

But now they're shoehorning everyone into those two movies.

Everyone? After 2015 they will still have made one single movie that isn't about the Avengers or a solo about the original/very early members.

 

[Kevin Smith]

Would be cool but there's too much snobbery in the movie business unfortunately.

Yeah.

 

[Kevin Smith]

Everyone? After 2015 they will still have made one single movie that isn't about the Avengers or a solo about the original/very early members.

If we pretend the Marvel movies never happened and have nothing to compare the DCCU to, the idea of getting a JLA film AT ALL whether there are individual solo films leading up to it or not is still pretty sweet and thrilling. That's kind of the way I look at it, even the whole Batman/Superman movie thing....although you could argue some of it may not have been on the forefront of WB's mind if not for The Avengers (but the idea of a JLA film and a Superman/Batman movie has been around before The Avengers movie plans I think). If you think about it, The Avengers film may not have been as successful if they did not introduce the other characters individually and introduced them in one film, because people aren't as familiar with them as they are the JLA....it's almost the only way an Avengers movie could be a guaranteed success....JLA on the other hand, most of those characters people know somewhat without having solo films, more so than The Avengers characters at least, so I'd say if they did both a JLA film and Avengers film individually and introduced all the characters in the ensemble pic instead of in their individual films leading up to it, I'm pretty certain the JLA film would be the more successful of the two.

 

[Mjölnir]

I was talking about WB turning BvS into an all-out JL movie or what have you. Wouldn't be surprised if they did at this point.

Ah, but my comment was about the other poster saying that Marvel Studios, that makes two per year, focus too much on quantity. WB does quite a lot more movies than that per year.

Personally I would prefer to see solo movies about the biggest JLA members before the team up (or TV shows, if they would consider using those actors in the movie) but I think what you say sound much more likely. My wish would of course need a different release schedule, which I guess doesn't seem very likely at all.