Did Warner Bros. Miss The Point?

[jmc]

jmc:

The source material isn't scripture but it shouldn't be ignored totally. It's the blue print of the franchise itself.

It's important for the film makers to understand as much of the the franchise they're adapting as possible, respect it and use what works while keeping the spirit, making it recognizable and creating a good adaption.

If something won't translate into a film there should be a pretty damn good reason for it and the changes have to make sense and be better for the franchise overall.

Yes, it's important to research the character and as many stories as possible to give the film makers the best possible chance of doing the character justice, but you still only need the basic foundations of the character to make it work on film. One could argue that Batman & Robin or Fantastic Four were close to the source material, yet they are awful movies. It's only one part of a successful movie, fans give too much credit to the source material as the reason of a film success, most of it is just damn good film making.

 

[terry78]

Batman could be done well because his source material is honestly the most realistic so Nolan could afford to make it like a crime thriller. Every other DC property could easily tread into goofy camp-fest if not done in the correct manner, simply because they're more fantastical than Batman's world.

 

[The Major]

Yes, it's important to research the character and as many stories as possible to give the film makers the best possible chance of doing the character justice, but you still only need the basic foundations of the character to make it work on film.

Agreed.

One could argue that Batman & Robin or Fantastic Four were close to the source material, yet they are awful movies.

They were faithful in some parts, I agree. What hurt most of it was bad execution.

Bane, Doom, Gordon, Batgirl and Galactus were the biggest casualties.

It's only one part of a successful movie, fans give too much credit to the source material as the reason of a film success, most of it is just damn good film making.

It depends on the adaption. Some get the source material but don't do a good job getting the potential on screen others ignore whole swaths of good material for no reason, others are almost unrecognizable.

For these adaptions to succeed the film makers have to successfully blend the source material with the film making properly. Sometimes they hit their target but sometimes they don't either deliberately or unintentionally. If it is unintentional the film makers shouldn't be blamed for it but if it intentional fandom will be very angry they wasted the opportunity.

Terry:

Batman's world can't be fantastic or campy? You should read the R.I.P story line in the comics going on right now. Or better yet watch Batman and Robin. The Huntress is more down to Earth then him.

Batman isn't the only comic he could make into a crime thriller. He could do that with Moon Knight, Huntress, Birds of Prey, Green Arrow or Daredevil.

 

[Crook]

Batman could be done well because his source material is honestly the most realistic so Nolan could afford to make it like a crime thriller. Every other DC property could easily tread into goofy camp-fest if not done in the correct manner, simply because they're more fantastical than Batman's world.

Nonsense. What is so inherent about fantasy that would lend itself to easily slip into campiness?

Actually, you don't have to answer because it's rhetorical. The answer is obvious to anyone with reason.

 

[not_a_victim]

Reading all this about how WB wants to vamp up the superheroes they own and make their films "darker" because of TDK just reminds me of what the comics industry did after TDKR. TDK had themes and messages, and wasn't just violence for the sake of darkening it up. Also, not every character fits the darkness inherent in the Batman story. Superman stories deal with a lighter, most nostalgic tone. The Flash and Hal Jordan should also, I believe, have a lighter feeling, if simply because of their characters. This is not to say they cannot be deep or even be dark in their own ways -- but they do not and should not (in my opinion) be as dark as TDK.

I feel that a Jordon GL movie would have to be not "dark" but more gritty and mature, or else it would simply come off to the casual fan as hokey. "Oh, he has a magical ring that does whatever he wants?" How thrilling.

 

[Katsuro]

My god, almost that entire article was a laughably exaggerated b***h-fit. Talk about taking a sentence and completely running with it.

I understand the need to keep the integrity of the character, but people are overblowing the hell outta this. There is nothing wrong with inserting a dark tone into the narrative. Any Superman fans knows the mythos is filled with it. All the classic stories, in one way or another have a dark aspect to it. Look no further than the character's damn origin. If that ain't heartbreaking and an emotional downer, I don't know what is.

You just have to keep Superman himself and Metropolis in general, to be free of the circumstance. They key is presentation of the film. Once you see screens and footage of this film looking too similar to TDK, then the boards can go in a riot. Otherwise, calm the hell down.

Dude, you dont get it. Apparently, since the movie's going to be "dark" like The Dark Knight, then Lex Luthor's going to be a rapist and Lois Lane a crack ****e, you know... just like in The Dark Knight.

That article was complete nonsense, I can hardly believe it's real. It almost has to be satire.

 

[DarkSuperman]

It seems obvious that fans are somewhat hesitant to take some risks, like it or not, The Dark Knight was a risk, it brought in new audiences, one that soaked up the more mature approach to the Superhero genre. The problem I think some fans have in seeing is that sticking to the source material is not the only factor in what made TDK a success, it was an all round well crafted movie that didn't follow the traditional formula of not only superhero films but of blockbuster movies in general, it was different and it reaped rewards. I think WB are putting the audience first, by treating them like adults, a 'dark' Superman film doesn't mean black suit and depressing characters, it could mean anything from more threatening villains who push Superman to his absolute limits, to greater discovery of who the man is. There's no reason a Superman or Green Lantern or whoever can't have greater depth and darker themes, to say there's only one way to interpret a character is absurd, the characters source material is not some sacred scripture, people have to be open to interpretation otherwise it all becomes stale and will only appeal to the fan base.

What this all really comes down to is a writer and director who understands the characters they're writing for. People like Favreau, Raimi, and Nolan inherently understands what makes their respective characters work. In the end ultimately it's up to the individual captains of the ships to craft somethign brilliant. The old white dudes who run the studios and give them the money aren't artistic. They don't know the first thing about making movies. They just throw money at popular names and hope for the best.

So, yeah...good directors/writers who understand the characters are a must. I don't know what a "Dark" Superman means, but I hope it takes the character to knew levels and delivers what so many of the fans have been asking for like The Incredible Hulk did. I loved that flick on so many levels. I can only imagine how great a sequel would be. Same for Iron Man, saw both twice, btw.

 

[Steelsheen]

My god, almost that entire article was a laughably exaggerated b***h-fit. Talk about taking a sentence and completely running with it.

its better that reporters/ bloggers/fanboys goes apesht now rather than much later when they're starting to film, because at least now they can (hopefully) make some effect with the writing-- which is where the movie is born. if no one complained 2 years ago of what WB said about their plans for GL, we would be seeing Nacho Libre with a power ring unspooling in the nearest cineplex near you.

I understand the need to keep the integrity of the character, but people are overblowing the hell outta this. There is nothing wrong with inserting a dark tone into the narrative. Any Superman fans knows the mythos is filled with it. All the classic stories, in one way or another have a dark aspect to it. Look no further than the character's damn origin. If that ain't heartbreaking and an emotional downer, I don't know what is.

yes i know the Superman mythos very well, and i tell you that although his birth is a sad story, he is more than just a poor alien orphan living in his adopted homeworld. part of the reason why i find the "dark and brooding" quote so problematic is because Superman, who may have dark moments, is not so much brooding as he is inspirational, thats seems to be something lots of people forget, something writers (both film and comics) find difficult to write about because they have to be inspirational themselves to give that to the Superman story. SR had some inspirational parts, but most of it is bogged down in melodrama. and Superkid doesnt help at all.

What this all really comes down to is a writer and director who understands the characters they're writing for. People like Favreau, Raimi, and Nolan inherently understands what makes their respective characters work. In the end ultimately it's up to the individual captains of the ships to craft somethign brilliant. The old white dudes who run the studios and give them the money aren't artistic. They don't know the first thing about making movies. They just throw money at popular names and hope for the best.

exactly. creative talent is one of the things thats key to making a movie work, and it isnt enough to hire the popular director or the writer who won awards, or even someone who sounds good on paper like Josh Whedon for Wonder Woman. getting him is a capital mistake, because he may have successes with strong woman characters like Buffy, but he has absolutely no concept of what WW is about. which shouldnt be any surprise because he's a Marvel boy. his forte is the X-Men, not the Amazon Princess.

the key phrase is someone who inherently understands the character. find that someone, and most of your writing and directing problems is resolved. i dont know about Favreu, but i do know that Sam Raimi and Christopher Nolan helped write the script for their films (although they are not credited since they are already directing it). there's just this special quality that you see in the finished product if your writer is also your director.

 

[Jawn]

I feel that a Jordon GL movie would have to be not "dark" but more gritty and mature, or else it would simply come off to the casual fan as hokey. "Oh, he has a magical ring that does whatever he wants?" How thrilling.

Actually, what I meant by that was more of the fact that Hal Jordan always seemed to me like someone with a keen sense of humor and just the right amount of cockiness. His story can definitely bring about a more mature tone (after all, he is essentially an inter-galactic marine) -- I just don't want everyone to turn in a brooding, angst-ridden Batman. Nothing against Bruce, he's one of my favorite characters, and that persona works for him, but not everyone.

 

[Jawn]

Once you see screens and footage of this film looking too similar to TDK, then the boards can go in a riot. Otherwise, calm the hell down.

I'm just trying to prevent the loss of many years and an entire film. Its like when you start feeling yourself getting sick but you're not sure if you are or not, you still start taking steps to prevent yourself from getting sick. That's a crappy parallel but whatever. Obviously I'm not a fly on the wall at WB meetings, so I have no idea what they're discussing, but I'd rather throw these thoughts at them then years later think "Wow, I decided not to say anything and they got it wrong." Of course, who knows whether they actually read these boards or care about what we're saying, but at least we're putting it out there.

 

[bullets]

Reading all this about how WB wants to vamp up the superheroes they own and make their films "darker" because of TDK just reminds me of what the comics industry did after TDKR. TDK had themes and messages, and wasn't just violence for the sake of darkening it up. Also, not every character fits the darkness inherent in the Batman story. Superman stories deal with a lighter, most nostalgic tone. The Flash and Hal Jordan should also, I believe, have a lighter feeling, if simply because of their characters. This is not to say they cannot be deep or even be dark in their own ways -- but they do not and should not (in my opinion) be as dark as TDK.

I take it that warner brothers wants these new superhero films to be able to fit into the same universe as the dark night so there can be a collaboration that works between the characters.
i don't think all the characters have to be dark and brooding for that to happen. batman has always been the darker mysterious character of the justice league group. The other characters could be themselves and we would still have a decent film .
Nowadays we have so many comic movies it would be a good idead to be able to distinguish them to convince people they arent going to see the same movie.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Didn't the article say that Robinov wanted his SH movies to "Be made in the same brooding tone as TDK" ?

 

[Crook]

its better that reporters/ bloggers/fanboys goes apesht now rather than much later when they're starting to film, because at least now they can (hopefully) make some effect with the writing-- which is where the movie is born. if no one complained 2 years ago of what WB said about their plans for GL, we would be seeing Nacho Libre with a power ring unspooling in the nearest cineplex near you.

Not the same case at all. What have you heard on this project that would illicit such an overblown response? Really, I want something to be bolded and underlined for me that suggests we're getting an abomination of a Superman film.

yes i know the Superman mythos very well, and i tell you that although his birth is a sad story, he is more than just a poor alien orphan living in his adopted homeworld. part of the reason why i find the "dark and brooding" quote so problematic is because Superman, who may have dark moments, is not so much brooding as he is inspirational, thats seems to be something lots of people forget, something writers (both film and comics) find difficult to write about because they have to be inspirational themselves to give that to the Superman story. SR had some inspirational parts, but most of it is bogged down in melodrama. and Superkid doesnt help at all.

....did you read my entire post? I've already said that it'd be wrong to make the characters themselves and environment be presented in a dark manner. That doesn't mean their character arcs and subplots cannot have an underlying dark tone to it.

I'm just trying to prevent the loss of many years and an entire film. Its like when you start feeling yourself getting sick but you're not sure if you are or not, you still start taking steps to prevent yourself from getting sick. That's a crappy parallel but whatever. Obviously I'm not a fly on the wall at WB meetings, so I have no idea what they're discussing, but I'd rather throw these thoughts at them then years later think "Wow, I decided not to say anything and they got it wrong." Of course, who knows whether they actually read these boards or care about what we're saying, but at least we're putting it out there.

I suppose there could be some good that comes out of this. I don't want a dark, brooding, and depressing Superman film either. However this could just as easily blow up in everyone's faces if WB takes it the wrong way.

Imagine if all this backlash against a dark take (which is vague in itself) on the character, makes WB do a 180.....and instead we get a FF-eque type film, thinking that's what the audience "really" wants. Now that'd just piss me off to no end.

Didn't the article say that Robinov wanted his SH movies to "Be made in the same brooding tone as TDK" ?

No, that was something inserted in by the article's writer. His actual quote only suggested they plan to borrow TDK's approach in exploring the evil complexities of the characters. That's more than welcome in my eyes. It's about time we get superhero movies with depth.

 

[hammy]

Reading all this about how WB wants to vamp up the superheroes they own and make their films "darker" because of TDK just reminds me of what the comics industry did after TDKR. TDK had themes and messages, and wasn't just violence for the sake of darkening it up. Also, not every character fits the darkness inherent in the Batman story. Superman stories deal with a lighter, most nostalgic tone. The Flash and Hal Jordan should also, I believe, have a lighter feeling, if simply because of their characters. This is not to say they cannot be deep or even be dark in their own ways -- but they do not and should not (in my opinion) be as dark as TDK.

I agree. But the powers that be at the WB are idiots, so what else can you expect?

 

[I Am The Knight]

No, that was something inserted in by the article's writer. His actual quote only suggested they plan to borrow TDK's approach in exploring the evil complexities of the characters. That's more than welcome in my eyes. It's about time we get superhero movies with depth.

Ah, goody-good.

 

[WeaponXProject]

I would like to see Superman hit a darker element. A struggle with being the "do-gooder".

The darker route for Supes would to struggle with being Clark. Who is Clark? Why can't he just be Superman all the time. A la TDK. In the new Batman movie series it seems to me that Bruce doesn't want to be Bruce. He would rather be Batman. I think Supes could be better like that. Maybe Clark does or doesn't want to be Clark Kent and he may take his aggression out on his enemies. Superman also needs a new enemy outside of Lex Luthor, imo.

Ultimately, I can't see Warner Bros. making the other characters dark and people enjoying it. I would like to see some new sides to characters but it won't work with most of them. I think they missed the point outside of Supes being retuned and going on.

 

[Steelsheen]

Not the same case at all. What have you heard on this project that would illicit such an overblown response? Really, I want something to be bolded and underlined for me that suggests we're getting an abomination of a Superman film.

have you heard the adage "A ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure"? the fans going nutz is the ounce of prevention. as i've said its better that TPTB get feedback now before the studio spends millions on writing and filming rather than whining about it years from now when everything is filmed and they have a stinkin' pile of crap on their hands.

....did you read my entire post? I've already said that it'd be wrong to make the characters themselves and environment be presented in a dark manner. That doesn't mean their character arcs and subplots cannot have an underlying dark tone to it.

yes i did, and you obviously missed the point in mine. i expressed that my sentiments about the danger of making Superman dark and brooding like Batman, however Superman story (origin and everything else) is more than a "heartbreaking and emotional downer", he, above and beyond everything else about his lore, is inspirational, which, as i said, is something writers seem to be having difficulty writing about. i'm not saying that Superman's charcter arcs and sub plots shouldnt be dark-- Superman Returns had plenty of that, but you'd be hard pressed to look up to the guy as an ideal. as someone in these forums famously said, Superman has now become a mere caricature of who he should be.

 

[Tony Stark]

This just goes to show some of the simple minded addled fools that work in the movie industry. We all know the dolts over at Fox pictures who interfere with the creative process of movie making, just to try to make a buck. Oh by the way did I mention Fox has fallen to 6th place in studio market share? Even behind Universal!!!

But now we know these same dolts are walking the halls of Warner Brothers. They really don't deserve the success of TDK, which owe's it's success not to Warner, but to a brilliant up and coming filmmaker who got his start making independant films because he couldn't get into the exclusive directors guild.

Honestly Warner can jump in the lake as far as I'm concerned. If they really wanted to make great movies then get the execs the hell out of the film makers creative process.

Oh and by the way, we know how pissed off Nolan was when WB was trying to push justice league off the backs of the success of Nolan's Batman films. It would just be a lame Hollywood stuio move, to push his ass out the door over corporate ego's, ala Fox and Brian Singer.

Superman is not a dark character, nor is Wonder Woman. If you want to make those films more epic, then great, but dark? Even Frank Miller understood that Superman was not a dark character, and he would have little if anything in common with Batman. But from the simple minded world of a WB exec, they look at $$$ and will ride the train for all it's worth, even at the expense of artistic integrity.

 

[The Major]

What this all really comes down to is a writer and director who understands the characters they're writing for. People like Favreau, Raimi, and Nolan inherently understands what makes their respective characters work. In the end ultimately it's up to the individual captains of the ships to craft somethign brilliant.

Another reason they worked is that they had the proper skills to bring their franchises to life.

It wasn't an accident that they succeeded IMO.

 

[The Major]

Superman is not a dark character, nor is Wonder Woman.

WW can be dark sometimes. It's partially why its hard to execute her.

She needs balance between the darkness and the light to work properly.

The film makers need to know exactly when she goes into full warrior mode and to take a step back to be compassionate to her friends and enemies.

 

[Steelsheen]

WW can be dark sometimes. It's partially why its hard to execute her.

She needs balance between the darkness and the light to work properly.

The film makers need to know exactly when she goes into full warrior mode and to take a step back to be compassionate to her friends and enemies.

i think a woman needs to write Wonder Woman.

Gail Simone FTW w00t! t:

 

[The Major]

i think a woman needs to write Wonder Woman.

Gail Simone FTW w00t! t:

I like that idea very much, Steel.

 

[Tony Stark]

WW can be dark sometimes. It's partially why its hard to execute her.

She needs balance between the darkness and the light to work properly.

The film makers need to know exactly when she goes into full warrior mode and to take a step back to be compassionate to her friends and enemies.

I think it's pretty simple, she's an Amazon warrior.

 

[DarkSuperman]

I think it's pretty simple, she's an Amazon warrior.

I don't get why everyone thinks WW is sooooo hard to write for. She's basically the female equivalent of Superman. Instead of a stranger from another planet, she's a stranger from a mystical island. The only real difference between them is that depending on how evil you are WW will probably kill you, while Superman will just Phantom Zone yous a$$

 

[The Major]

I don't get why everyone thinks WW is sooooo hard to write for. She's basically the female equivalent of Superman. Instead of a stranger from another planet, she's a stranger from a mystical island. The only real difference between them is that depending on how evil you are WW will probably kill you, while Superman will just Phantom Zone yous a$$

I agree.

There are some major differences between her and Superman. She's royalty and has the fight skills to be one of the Earth's deadliest fighters.