DC is shooting themselves in the foot....

[SuperFerret]

You missed my point, even when DC was not launching any non Batman related properties, Marvel and the other Marvel licensed properties with other Studios) were still going full steam ahead with their properties....which could have resulted in "over-saturation" but it did not.

You're missing my point. The fact that Marvel properties were being churned out at such a fast pace IS the argument that there's over-saturation. And there is a level of over-saturation, I remember a time when you went to see a superhero movie just because you were a comic book fan. Now, there are so many that you don't need to go see them all because you can wait for the ones that interest you. Hell, the fact that I've still not seen The Amazing Spider-Man or the entirety of The Dark Knight Rises would have been seen as entirely crazy in 2008.

Man of Steel (2013)
Batman v Superman (2016)
Suicide Squad (2016)
Wonder Woman (2017)
Justice League Part I (2017)
The Flash (2018)
Aquaman (2018)
Shazam (2019)
Justice League Part II (2019)
Cyborg (2020)
Green Lantern (2020)
Man of Steel 2 (???)
Batman (???)

That doesn't exactly look like "moving as slow as possible" to me. Once BvS hits, they're planning to put out two DC films a year over the course of four years. Sure, there's that three-year gap between MoS and BvS (due to what is now looking like a most-welcomed delay), but people seem to forget that when the MCU was first starting out, there was a 2-year gap between The Incredible Hulk (2008) and Iron Man 2 (2010). Marvel didn't come out firing with two films a year from the get-go.

WB is making a push to get their universe started. It may be coming eight years after Marvel, but I'll take "late" over "never" in a heartbeat, especially considering that the latter was looking more likely under WB's previous management. Why fans continue to crucify them, I frankly do not understand. They're making an effort. Let's see what the first couple of movies look like before declaring that they've shot themselves in the foot. And I say that as someone who is A) not one of Zack Snyder's biggest fans, and B) not very fond of Man of Steel.

As for the television shows, CW's audience is a fraction of the global movie-going public. It's a non-factor as far as the movies are concerned.

That's assuming all of that happens. I recall there being similar plans when Green Lantern was coming out.

As for the crucifying, I think it stems from disappointment over Man of Steel's tone, which (for me at least) is the wrong direction to go in, and shows a sort of shame in the source material (something that the Flash series doesn't seem to have).

 

[godisawesome]

I'm still very amused by the arguments over tone. As a kid who grew up in the 1990s with viewing materials from the very straight laced Fleischer cartoons before STAS came on the scene, MOS fit my idea of Superman's tone dead on.

And to me, high paced, high concept, high stakes action played seriously is fun.

There's still a strong chance we will see variety in tone with the rest of the WB movies; I for one would be utterly shocked if there wasn't some kind of major shift in Suicide Squad's tone in comparison to BvS.

 

[Boom]

That's assuming all of that happens. I recall there being similar plans when Green Lantern was coming out.

And if it doesn't, I'll be first in line to voice my displeasure.

However, preproduction for Suicide Squad begins in February (production in April), with the director/writer and main cast already locked down. They also have a star, director, and writer attached for Wonder Woman. Justice League is a given to be happening at this point, so right there you have three of those films actively in the works. More than enough to give them the benefit of the doubt at this stage.

It seems obvious to me at least that this is the first time WB is making a serious push at this, and that's thanks in large to Kevin. WB has been looking for years for a replacement for Harry Potter. I think they're starting to realize that their DC properties could very well be just that.

 

[metaphysician]

I don't think DC is going to saturate the TV, mostly because I don't think most of the shows they announce will even make it to the air. Really, you shouldn't worry about over-saturation until there is an actual time slot conflict. *Then*, you can worry about whether DC TV is competing with itself.

One might question the wisdom of announcing and starting development of so many shows, that if they all hit the air, you might have problems. . . but that really is a different matter. It might even *be* wisdom, if you are realistically accepting a certain attrition rate.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ Everything they've announced has pretty much been given a 'series commitment' or else is being talked about as if there's enough interest in the concept that pickup seems almost assured even before the Pilot has been fully shot.

 

[ЯɘvlveR]

my only problems with the tvverse is it does seem like there's going to be an over saturation of shows. i don't like the idea of a supergirl tv show at all.

 

[Tec15]

I don't think DC is going to saturate the TV, mostly because I don't think most of the shows they announce will even make it to the air. Really, you shouldn't worry about over-saturation until there is an actual time slot conflict. *Then*, you can worry about whether DC TV is competing with itself.

One might question the wisdom of announcing and starting development of so many shows, that if they all hit the air, you might have problems. . . but that really is a different matter. It might even *be* wisdom, if you are realistically accepting a certain attrition rate.

Just like how they couldn't get any of the four shows they announced earlier this year on the air? Some of the shows under deveolpment might not make it, but I'd say that DC will have no problems in getting a majority of what they want in the air. It's not like they exactly lack networks who want one their shows now...

 

[Keehar]

my only problems with the tvverse is it does seem like there's going to be an over saturation of shows. i don't like the idea of a supergirl tv show at all.

Just don't watch it then. If it sucks it doesn't affect you.

 

[Red Mask]

Again, I am not talking about the genre as a whole, only DC. Once more, I am referring to DC only and not the entire superhero genre. I'm not worried about the genre dying out any time soon...in fact I don't expect it to die out at all.

Now, I'm not saying that putting superheroes on television is a problem. But I'm saying that putting characters on TV that are supposed to be getting their own films as well or appear within the DCCU could make those characters in particular over-saturated.

The problems I speak of would affect DC & DC only and only certain characters...in particular the ones who will be appearing in multiple mediums co-existing all at once.

Of course this problem can be side-stepped if DC plans on introducing new characters to the big screen that would be considered a "gamble" or "lesser known."

That's not a problem. What you mean is 'overexposure'. So far it hasn't affected the marketability of Superman or Batman. Whether or not there could be conflicting origins between the tv version of a new character against the big screen hasn't proven to affect the audience.

 

[Cain]

A couple of months ago it was "DC is moving too fast".

So which is it? Too fast or too slow?

it's bordering on self-parody at this point.

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

personally i think dc is missing a trick not pulling an agents of shield with arrow and flash, the worlds are there the fan base is there adding them to the jla movie seems like a no brainier but i'm in the minority

 

[ЯɘvlveR]

Just don't watch it then. If it sucks it doesn't affect you.

that's not what I'n getting at, genius. the oversaturation could affect not just the quality, but the output of the stuff that probably deserves to get produced as well.

 

[SuperFerret]

I'm still very amused by the arguments over tone. As a kid who grew up in the 1990s with viewing materials from the very straight laced Fleischer cartoons before STAS came on the scene, MOS fit my idea of Superman's tone dead on.

And to me, high paced, high concept, high stakes action played seriously is fun.

There's still a strong chance we will see variety in tone with the rest of the WB movies; I for one would be utterly shocked if there wasn't some kind of major shift in Suicide Squad's tone in comparison to BvS.

Not very surprising because DC seems to be trying to bring the 90's back for some reason. Hell, I grew up in the 90's too. My first real exposure to a Superman comic was the Death of Superman story, which I feel is still a good snapshot of his character. My issue isn't with the pace or action, or even with the ending of Man of Steel. My issue is that it's a big money, big exposure portrayal of the first superhero that really doesn't convince me that anyone behind the movie really likes Superman. We've been having Superman play second fiddle (at best) to Batman for years now, when they should be standing as equals. The fighting, the destruction, the action, all stuff we've seen in Superman stories before and all fairly acceptable. The Pa Kent stuff is the most disappointing.

All the good Superman stories I've read, my Superman if you will, has the character as a prime example of nurture over nature. Clark Kent is Superman because of the morals instilled within his upbringing, not because of his superpowers. The El side just provides the ability to be the world's greatest hero, the Kent side is what provides the drive and will and personality to do so. Man of Steel just showed me that the movies were just going to go along with the recent trend of Jor-El over Jonathan Kent, and feed into the self-fulfilling prophecy of the unrelatable Superman. That's where my disappointment comes from.

tl;dr - The core of Superman should be more Earthman than Spaceman and MOS missed that entirely.

And if it doesn't, I'll be first in line to voice my displeasure.

However, preproduction for Suicide Squad begins in February (production in April), with the director/writer and main cast already locked down. They also have a star, director, and writer attached for Wonder Woman. Justice League is a given to be happening at this point, so right there you have three of those films actively in the works. More than enough to give them the benefit of the doubt at this stage.

It seems obvious to me at least that this is the first time WB is making a serious push at this, and that's thanks in large to Kevin. WB has been looking for years for a replacement for Harry Potter. I think they're starting to realize that their DC properties could very well be just that.

And it's just too damn bad that I'm outside of their target demographic. I don't doubt that at least some of these movies will be made, I just worry that they'll mess up the one good thing DC's putting out these days: the Flash-Arrow TV universe. In effect, I've got the exact opposite worry of this thread.

 

[Wildcard]

that's not what I'n getting at, genius. the oversaturation could affect not just the quality, but the output of the stuff that probably deserves to get produced as well.

Thank you.

 

[Flint Marko]

personally i think dc is missing a trick not pulling an agents of shield with arrow and flash, the worlds are there the fan base is there adding them to the jla movie seems like a no brainier but i'm in the minority

I'm right there with ya. I personally have no problem with DC cranking out all these TV shows (I don't think a lot of them will be made or last more than a season), I just wish they would consolidate their TV and film universes. Seems like a no-brainer, I don't know why they couldn't have thought ahead and planned it that way.

 

[Aejej]

As for the crucifying, I think it stems from disappointment over Man of Steel's tone, which (for me at least) is the wrong direction to go in, and shows a sort of shame in the source material (something that the Flash series doesn't seem to have).

I like MoS' darker tone. The Donner-Lester version of Superman, the "boy scout," was indulged once more in Superman Returns. It was met with mixed reviews, viewed like a rehash of the 1978 film, and gifted us with a hunk of green rock as its supervillain.

Most importantly, it hinged on the premise that Kal-el would abandon the Earth to go on an intergalactic field trip. When you consider the character and everything he's about and what he stands for, that is heresy.

 

[wampa1]

I'm much more excited for DC's TV output than I am for their cinematic offerings

 

[SuperFerret]

I like MoS' darker tone. The Donner-Lester version of Superman, the "boy scout," was indulged once more in Superman Returns. It was met with mixed reviews, viewed like a rehash of the 1978 film, and gifted us with a hunk of green rock as its supervillain.

Most importantly, it hinged on the premise that Kal-el would abandon the Earth to go on an intergalactic field trip. When you consider the character and everything he's about and what he stands for, that is heresy.

Emphasis mine.


MOST IMPORTANTLY the premise of Superman Returns turns its back on what's important about the character, on that we agree. The way I see it, the reason it was met with "mixed reviews" was because of the SuperDeadbeat plot and the fact that it was a rehash of the 70's movies, not because it showed off the "boy scout". At any rate, Superman Returns and Man of Steel are probably similarly dark, and both actually have the key issue I've been having with many depictions of Superman.

Superman is the story of an Earthman from Space, not a Spaceman on Earth. Krypton is only important in the sense that he can't go back there. He was all but born on Earth, as a farm boy in middle America, raised by honest, hard-working parents who instilled in him morals and a strong desire to fight injustice no matter the cost.

Superheroes are often orphans, and often they live in the shadow of a father figure, and that shapes who they are. Bruce Wayne's father was a doctor and a philanthropist who did what he could to make Gotham a better place to live, for everyone. Peter Parker's "father" was a man who lived by the creed that everyone has a responsibility equal to their amount of power. You could argue that Batman and Spider-Man would be nearly the same if those costumes were worn by Thomas and Ben as opposed to Bruce and Peter. If that's the case, I would say that Jonathan, not Jor-El, would be wearing the cape, because nearly every thing that Superman is, as a person, is because of the Kents.

And the betrayal of that in Man of Steel is why I worry about future Superman movies.

 

[Aejej]

Emphasis mine.


MOST IMPORTANTLY the premise of Superman Returns turns its back on what's important about the character, on that we agree. The way I see it, the reason it was met with "mixed reviews" was because of the SuperDeadbeat plot and the fact that it was a rehash of the 70's movies, not because it showed off the "boy scout".

Apart from the last eight words in that paragraph, I don't think we disagree.

It doesn't stop there, however. The whole "Superkid" thing was ridiculous. That's the single best thing about another film based on Singer's not happening.

It didn't help that Routh was upstaged by a supporting actor (Marsden).

The film had some nice special effects sequences, but it was marred by some very slow segments, not the least of which was the wholesale lift of Kal and Lois floating over the city.

The movie wasn't entirely a rehash, but it lacked enough original material and a primary antagonist separate from Luthor to sustain it.

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

I'm right there with ya. I personally have no problem with DC cranking out all these TV shows (I don't think a lot of them will be made or last more than a season), I just wish they would consolidate their TV and film universes. Seems like a no-brainer, I don't know why they couldn't have thought ahead and planned it that way.

because the fanboys would have screamed your copying marvel. and while that may have an element of truth. a good idea is still a fkn good idea

 

[SuperFerret]

Apart from the last eight words in that paragraph, I don't think we disagree.

It doesn't stop there, however. The whole "Superkid" thing was ridiculous. That's the single best thing about another film based on Singer's not happening.

It didn't help that Routh was upstaged by a supporting actor (Marsden).

The film had some nice special effects sequences, but it was marred by some very slow segments, not the least of which was the wholesale lift of Kal and Lois floating over the city.

The movie wasn't entirely a rehash, but it lacked enough original material and a primary antagonist separate from Luthor to sustain it.

Those last eight words are the entirety of my argument.

 

[Destructus86]

I think they are somewhat shooting themselves in the foot and that is by not creating a very cohesive universe like Marvel has done. In that I mean having some shows connected to each other while others are not and then the films not being connected to the shows at all. Even one (maybe more in the future) of the movies are not connected. This is going to get confusing.

 

[snpklsdmbldr]

is this the usual DC is bad for not doing the same way sa Marvel talk?

 

[Greens]

is this the usual DC is bad for not doing the same way sa Marvel talk?

Kind of.

It's very simple...

The MCU is the only example we have of a successful shared universe. It is way too early to tell whether DC is doing the right thing or not. So far, I'm inclined to say they're on the right path. I hope they do things their own way.

 

[hopeless]

They're not moving too fast, had they wanted all these series could have been interconnected so they could bypass the multiple movie lead Marvel has on them.

Instead they're trying to make up the gap and at this stage it doesn't look good.