DC Could Learn Lessons From Marvel's Movie Strategy

Thanks to industry politics, a marginalized readership and limited distribution.

This is not just a problem DC has. They're doing quite well compared to most of the industry.

No, but they should have more involvement.

Unlike most of WB they actually know the characters they're making stories about.

The answer no is in response to having DC make films I assume. As for involvement, this article, confirms the fact that DC has the right to first refusal on any scripts related to their characters (see the fifth paragraph). This whole notion that DC doesn't get involved in these projects is just a misconception. They provide the source material and get to see the script before the project is released. They even have the opportunity to object. If they do not do that and it doesn't fair well at the BO, then it shouldn't be the WB's fault alone.

It's better but WB still hasn't gotten a successful serial super-hero DC adaption which aren't Batman and Superman yet.

Not that Batman or Superman haven't been severely mistreated at times.

Maybe not specifially superhero films, but the WB has produced some good comicbook films: 300, "Constantine", the "Richie Rich" films, "Spawn", and "V for Vendetta". People are discounting the work that the WB has already done and will be doing in the future and this is only because Marvel has only had a few good films as of late. The truth of the matter is if you go back as much as 15 years or even 30 years ago, Marvel couldn't even get a project off the ground. What we are seeing right now is just a flux in the market of film productions. It might be Marvel's time now, but it will eventually turn back to the WB or somebody else.
 
The answer no is in response to having DC make films I assume. As for involvement, this article, confirms the fact that DC has the right to first refusal on any scripts related to their characters (see the fifth paragraph). This whole notion that DC doesn't get involved in these projects is just a misconception. They provide the source material and get to see the script before the project is released.

It's good to know they have some power.

They even have the opportunity to object.

Which is where their power ends.

The article was incredibly vague on why Levitz doesn't contribute more beside rejecting and approving scripts.

Whether he simply doesn't have the time or isn't allowed to are two completely different things.

It would be interesting to know exactly why DC would let the scripts for Batman & Robin, Catwoman and Steel getting made.

Levitz doesn't seem like a guy who would go for scripts like that.

If they do not do that and it doesn't fair well at the BO, then it shouldn't be the WB's fault alone.

Agreed.

Maybe not specifially superhero films, but the WB has produced some good comicbook films: 300, "Constantine", the "Richie Rich" films, "Spawn", and "V for Vendetta".

True.

People are discounting the work that the WB has already done and will be doing in the future

That's because WB's work has been far from stellar. Sure they have had done good but they have had a lot of failures.

It will take a very long time to build trust between the comic fans after so many failures.

and this is only because Marvel has only had a few good films as of late.

True.

The truth of the matter is if you go back as much as 15 years or even 30 years ago, Marvel couldn't even get a project off the ground. What we are seeing right now is just a flux in the market of film productions. It might be Marvel's time now, but it will eventually turn back to the WB or somebody else.

Agreed.
 
It would be interesting to know exactly why DC would let the scripts for Batman & Robin, Catwoman and Steel getting made.

It's not rocket science.

BATMAN & ROBIN
Toys

STEEL
Shaq

CATWOMAN
Halle Berry
 
It's not rocket science.

BATMAN & ROBIN
Toys

Batman will sell toys with a good scripted movie. A badly made one isn't required.

STEEL
Shaq

Didn't Kazaam fail?

CATWOMAN
Halle Berry

Has she ever made a successful under her own power before?

She wasn't the only high profile actress interested in the role, either. But the film never got anywhere near shooting with any of them. I think Ashley Judd was one of these actresses.

It's not like Levitz wouldn't know a good script for these characters when he saw them. He was a veteran editor in chief and comic writer at DC for decades.
 
I will say one thing...I'm super pissed about how Marvel is continuously rolling all their comic book Icons off the assembly line with style and flair while DC is lagging behind like a deaf pony who didn't hear the starter pistol go off at the race.

Where is Green Lantern and The Flash? These dudes are Icons and Wanted is getting a movie before them? Not to mention ALL the other obscure comic heroes who are getting their turn on the silver screen waaaaaaaaaay before Hal and Barry.

That's just not right.

DC better move their asses. Cause their screwing up. Oh, and if the Hulk can make a sweet reboot then Mark Millar better make a kick ass Superman reboot too. New Jor-El, New Krypton, and Superman kicking butt Action Comics style.

Get it done, DC!
 
This is really stupid I mean what Marvel has come out with 2 movies one thats done amazing and another that's doing ok

then you want to get all the marvel heros that have appeared the only ones that have had any good movies where Spidey X-men Iron Man

DC has come out with both Batman and Superman both good movies one just under performed
& is coming out with other type of comic movies V sin city 300 watchmen

yeah WB doesnt need to ****e out there characters if they dont think its needed
 
Well, WB does have the power to connect the DC Universe on screen like Marvel has now with its studio. There ought to be references dropped out to Flash, GL, etc. in the next Superman movie or something. That way they can build up the hype like Marvel is for Thor and Captain America in IM, TIH and probably IM 2. Example: show a Green Lantern ring left on a table.
 
...Which is where their power ends.

The article was incredibly vague on why Levitz doesn't contribute more beside rejecting and approving scripts.

Whether he simply doesn't have the time or isn't allowed to are two completely different things.

It would be interesting to know exactly why DC would let the scripts for Batman & Robin, Catwoman and Steel getting made.

Levitz doesn't seem like a guy who would go for scripts like that.

What would you have him do, write the scripts in their entirety? Paul Levitz is an executive with DC. At that level, they usually don't have time for that and have to rely on other professionals to do it for them. Like I said before, these are comic book people we are talking about and they are not very savvy at the motion picture business, nor are they expected to be. What a lot of you are suggesting here is akin to building your own car versus buying one built by a automobile manufacturer. You may know what you want, but Ford could build it better and cheaper. Even Marvel is not doing what you propose. In answer to your comment about "Batman & Robin", "Catwoman", and "Steel" (and BTW, Levitz wasn't president of DC at that time these screenplays or casting was performed, it was [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Jenette Kahn[/FONT]), I don't think anyone at the WB nor DC actually knew if these films were going to under perform as they did, else they wouldn't have released them. They actually thought they had elements in them that certain fans liked and that enough of them would have gone to see it. As an after thought, the first film (Batman & Robin) could have had less surrealistic action and comedy and the latter two films may have fared better had they featured the more popular characters of Batman and Superman respectively at least in cameo roles.
 
Last edited:
Well, WB does have the power to connect the DC Universe on screen like Marvel has now with its studio. There ought to be references dropped out to Flash, GL, etc. in the next Superman movie or something. That way they can build up the hype like Marvel is for Thor and Captain America in IM, TIH and probably IM 2. Example: show a Green Lantern ring left on a table.

In all honesty, the characters work better as individuals, both DC and Marvel. The Marvel crossover plan is by all means a comic fans dream, but from a cinematic experience it leaves little room to do anything ground breaking with any of the characters if they're all in the one continuity, effectively, you're getting the same type of film 4 times just with different characters. DC have it right in that they are keeping the continuities separate, it leads to greater depth and expansion of each individual characters universe and variation in tone. I think crossovers are better left for comics, it just doesn't suit film as a medium.
 
In all honesty, the characters work better as individuals, both DC and Marvel. The Marvel crossover plan is by all means a comic fans dream, but from a cinematic experience it leaves little room to do anything ground breaking with any of the characters if they're all in the one continuity, effectively, you're getting the same type of film 4 times just with different characters. DC have it right in that they are keeping the continuities separate, it leads to greater depth and expansion of each individual characters universe and variation in tone. I think crossovers are better left for comics, it just doesn't suit film as a medium.

I disagree, Marvel is going to show you that crossovers work in any medium.
Comic books = Story telling, Movie = Story telling, just tell a wonderful story with the crossover characters and it will work.
 
I disagree, Marvel is going to show you that crossovers work in any medium.
Comic books = Story telling, Movie = Story telling, just tell a wonderful story with the crossover characters and it will work.

The point I was making is that the characters would work better on screen if they were kept in their own universe. The beauty of film is that things can be interpreted differently, but having to conform a bunch of characters into a single universe limits what you can and can't do to the film. Hence why I believe crossovers aren't suited for film.
 
The point I was making is that the characters would work better on screen if they were kept in their own universe. The beauty of film is that things can be interpreted differently, but having to conform a bunch of characters into a single universe limits what you can and can't do to the film. Hence why I believe crossovers aren't suited for film.

I dont see why the exact same wouldn't apply to the comics? If these characters can coexist in the comics, I dont see why they wouldn't be able to in film.

It's working so far for Marvel. I have no problem believing that Iron Man, Hulk, Nick Fury, and Captain America all exist within this one world. We'll have to wait and see how Thor fits in.

These characters are supposed to coexist. That's how they've been written for decades. Fanboys get all up in arms about making changes in comic book movies, but somehow getting rid of the connections between these characters is okay?
 
I dont see why the exact same wouldn't apply to the comics? If these characters can coexist in the comics, I dont see why they wouldn't be able to in film.

It's working so far for Marvel. I have no problem believing that Iron Man, Hulk, Nick Fury, and Captain America all exist within this one world. We'll have to wait and see how Thor fits in.

These characters are supposed to coexist. That's how they've been written for decades. Fanboys get all up in arms about making changes in comic book movies, but somehow getting rid of the connections between these characters is okay?

Yes it is ok to ignore what connection there may be in comics. The comics are there for reference, they're not gospel, the nature of film is such that you could interpret any individual character 10 different ways on screen. Without the continuity, you'd have more flexibility and be able to push more boundaries for each character, greater creativity and greater room to move with out having to worry about what Hulk or Capt America are doing. It's the reason why The Dark Knight is shaping up to be so good because it's not tied with anything else, had WB tied it with Superman Returns the film wouldn't be pushing the boundaries its alleged to have been. I'm not saying what Marvel is doing can't work, but I believe what they're doing risks becoming stale after 2 or 3 films.
 
Has she ever made a successful under her own power before?

She wasn't the only high profile actress interested in the role, either. But the film never got anywhere near shooting with any of them. I think Ashley Judd was one of these actresses.

It's not like Levitz wouldn't know a good script for these characters when he saw them. He was a veteran editor in chief and comic writer at DC for decades.

You asked why they were made. I told you. I never said they would be successful.
 
I have this feeling that a lot of you will change your sour opinions after the first weekend of TDK. According to sources, show times are already selling out for the opening weekend and the ticket presales for the film are 8 times that of "Spider-Man 3" for the same time period. This could possibly mean that the film could get better opening weekend numbers than "The Incredible Hulk", "Hancock", or "Ironman". The WB doesn't have to learn anything from Marvel. In fact it might be the other way around.
 
This is one thing i don't really get. No offense to Heath Ledger (RIP). I know he's very talented but of all the performances in the comic book movies why should his be the one to get an Oscar nomination or win?:huh: Is it really that good or is it because he's no longer with us? People tend to show much more respect towards the dead than the living. The same seems to happening here granted some people were talking Oscar before his tragic passing.:o

I wouldn't necessarily say that. It could just be because Ledger delivers a performance deserving of accolades, whether those be awards or otherwise.

[YT]37zErAXOx-A[/YT]
Comments on TDK from Kevin Smith's MySpace blog:

Kevin Smith said:
Without giving anything away, this is an epic film (and trust me: based on the sheer size and scope of the visuals and storytelling, that's not an overstatement). It's the "Godfather II" of comic book films and three times more earnest than "Batman Begins" (and ****, was that an earnest film). Easily the most adult comic book film ever made. Heath Ledger didn't so much give a performance as he disappeared completely into the role; I know I'm not the first to suggest this, but he'll likely get at least an Oscar nod (if not the win) for Best Supporting Actor. ****ing flick's nearly three hours long and only leaves you wanting more (in a great way). I can't imagine anyone being disappointed by it. Nolan and crew have created something close to a masterpiece.

Further proof that we need not tell the WB what to do. They can figure it out by themselves.
 
I have this feeling that a lot of you will change your sour opinions after the first weekend of TDK. According to sources, show times are already selling out for the opening weekend and the ticket presales for the film are 8 times that of "Spider-Man 3" for the same time period. This could possibly mean that the film could get better opening weekend numbers than "The Incredible Hulk", "Hancock", or "Ironman". The WB doesn't have to learn anything from Marvel. In fact it might be the other way around.


:pal: Lol well my friend I think the WB has learnt from Marvel.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ia50cdcb373435f1b7a1569d16f760546
WB mulls redraw of DC Comics plan
Big shake-up could be in the works

By Borys Kit
July 11, 2008, 12:00 AM ET


A big shake-up could be in the works at Warner Bros. for its DC Comics film properties.

In the course of the past couple of weeks, Warner Bros. Pictures Group president Jeff Robinov and Warner Bros. Pictures president Kevin McCormick have been meeting with DC Comics executives as well some of DC's top talents, like Jim Lee, to discuss a new direction for film adaptations.

Up until now, the comic properties had been undergoing a hodge-podge development process. With the recent success of Marvel Studios' "Iron Man" and "The Incredible Hulk" and that company's plan to develop its many characters linked strategically together, Warners has been forced to take a close second look at its sister company.

With "The Dark Knight" near its release date, a new agenda is being set, one that not only sees the DC characters emerge with a higher priority but also one that would see them developed with an overarching goal in mind.

Although plans are in motion, any firm deals or announcements are weeks away.

Warners declined comment on the discussions, only stating: "While we are not going to go into the specifics of the meetings, we're constantly looking at how best to exploit the DC Comics characters and properties. DC is an incredibly valuable asset to Warner Bros. and plays an important role across the entire studio by providing development and franchise opportunities for all media, including films, television, home entertainment, animation, consumer products, video games and digital platforms."

DC & Marvel could learn a thing or two from New Line Cinema's Journey to the Center of the Earth.
 
Yes it is ok to ignore what connection there may be in comics. The comics are there for reference, they're not gospel, the nature of film is such that you could interpret any individual character 10 different ways on screen. Without the continuity, you'd have more flexibility and be able to push more boundaries for each character, greater creativity and greater room to move with out having to worry about what Hulk or Capt America are doing. It's the reason why The Dark Knight is shaping up to be so good because it's not tied with anything else, had WB tied it with Superman Returns the film wouldn't be pushing the boundaries its alleged to have been. I'm not saying what Marvel is doing can't work, but I believe what they're doing risks becoming stale after 2 or 3 films.

Comics ARE THE GOSPEL, most films that stay true to the comics are the most successful. One does not need to regurgitate line for line the source material, just stay true to the reference material. Example: giving characters children when said character never had any children according to the gospel, also making characters emotionally inept when said character is the definition of emotional fortitude.
 
Comics ARE THE GOSPEL, most films that stay true to the comics are the most successful. One does not need to regurgitate line for line the source material, just stay true to the reference material. Example: giving characters children when said character never had any children according to the gospel, also making characters emotionally inept when said character is the definition of emotional fortitude.

No they're not, they're are not some sacred text that cannot be altered, they are reference material, if a certain part of that characters story or history doesn't suit the film they are trying to make, they are well within their right as filmmakers to take it out or, if they feel the need, put in what ever they feel like. A successful film is not based on how close it is to the comic, it's based on good film making.
 
Comics ARE THE GOSPEL, most films that stay true to the comics are the most successful. One does not need to regurgitate line for line the source material, just stay true to the reference material. Example: giving characters children when said character never had any children according to the gospel, also making characters emotionally inept when said character is the definition of emotional fortitude.

And of the two Hulk movies, which one came closer to the the proper Hulk origin? I'm pretty sure it was Ang Lee's and not that pale imitation of Bill Bixby.

There is no roadmap. Comics take several years to full fleshout what was established in a book twenty years early.(Batman Year One) and if fans accept it, it becomes gospel. In comics we accept that Peter and MJ love each other because they're pieces of paper. In real life, we have to cast actors with chemistry and that's not a science. Movie can come out wrong for all kinds of reasons.

It's also even more ironic coming from a guy openly advocating changing the race of Captain Marvel. Stick to the source material and keep him white then.
 
No they're not, they're are not some sacred text that cannot be altered, they are reference material, if a certain part of that characters story or history doesn't suit the film they are trying to make, they are well within their right as filmmakers to take it out or, if they feel the need, put in what ever they feel like. A successful film is not based on how close it is to the comic, it's based on good film making.


You are simply wrong. :o
 
I have this feeling that a lot of you will change your sour opinions after the first weekend of TDK. According to sources, show times are already selling out for the opening weekend and the ticket presales for the film are 8 times that of "Spider-Man 3" for the same time period. This could possibly mean that the film could get better opening weekend numbers than "The Incredible Hulk", "Hancock", or "Ironman". The WB doesn't have to learn anything from Marvel. In fact it might be the other way around.

That's fine for Batman. But he's Batman. With a sequel done by the same people who bought the franchise back to relevancy with a critical and financial hit after Schumacher.

It would be much more impressive if this were a super-hero adaption who wasn't Batman or Superman.

Marvel didn't have those perks with Iron Man yet they still managed to produce a hit. That's much tougher IMO.
 
Hey, Iron-Man is a lot more popular than you think. In fact he is very similar to Batman in that he is a rich guy playing superhero. That is a very appealing concept to both men and women. There were a lot of cool things in that film (expecially for techno-geeks) and you could actually bring your kids to see it. I think those were deciding factors to it's success.

I know you are trying to soften this by saying this is Batman, but even still, comic book films do not get Oscar considerations outside of maybe, "Best Score" or Best Cinematography. If the acolades now become true in the future (Heath Ledger getting "Best Supporting Actor" or "The Dark Knight" even getting nominated for "Best Picture") it would be a first. Thats saying a lot about what they are doing with their properties.
 
And of the two Hulk movies, which one came closer to the the proper Hulk origin? I'm pretty sure it was Ang Lee's and not that pale imitation of Bill Bixby.

There is no roadmap. Comics take several years to full fleshout what was established in a book twenty years early.(Batman Year One) and if fans accept it, it becomes gospel. In comics we accept that Peter and MJ love each other because they're pieces of paper. In real life, we have to cast actors with chemistry and that's not a science. Movie can come out wrong for all kinds of reasons.

It's also even more ironic coming from a guy openly advocating changing the race of Captain Marvel. Stick to the source material and keep him white then.


Ang Lee's Hulk sucked so incredibly bad. So, I guess sticking to the comic too closely isn't always a good thing.
 
I know you are trying to soften this by saying this is Batman, but even still, comic book films do not get Oscar considerations outside of maybe, "Best Score" or Best Cinematography. If the acolades now become true in the future (Heath Ledger getting "Best Supporting Actor" or "The Dark Knight" even getting nominated for "Best Picture") it would be a first. Thats saying a lot about what they are doing with their properties.

Please amend that to SUPERHERO comic book films. A History of Violence, Road to Perdition, American Splendor, and Ghost World would be surprised to learn that they weren't up for any "significant" Oscars. Heck, Persepolis too.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"