Did Warner Bros. Miss The Point?

[Steelsheen]

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$$

heyyyy... that was only one storyline that she offed someone. other than that she has better temperament than Batman or Superman

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.

she's a master strategist too. WW has sort of been the combination of Superman and Batman, with a prettier face and nicer legs

 

[The Major]

heyyyy... that was only one storyline that she offed someone. other than that she has better temperament than Batman or Superman

WW's killed at least 3 times Post-Crisis.

She massacred armies of demons in Asgard, too.

she's a master strategist too. WW has sort of been the combination of Superman and Batman, with a prettier face and nicer legs

 

[Lobo]

Killing a demon isn't exactly the same as snapping a humans neck though

 

[The Major]

Killing a demon isn't exactly the same as snapping a humans neck though

How about a god or super-human?

 

[Crook]

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.

Again, it's being blown out of proportion. Fans are interpreting and hanging onto one sentence and making something out of nothing. We have NO solid info on anything, from a script, to a synopsis, or even a distinct direction. So to rally an outcry over something with no precedent is beyond pointless.

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.

Who exactly is missing the point here when you've repeated the same thing I've said/implied in my very first post?

 

[jmc]

Again, it's being blown out of proportion. Fans are interpreting and hanging onto one sentence and making something out of nothing. We have NO solid info on anything, from a script, to a synopsis, or even a distinct direction. So to rally an outcry over something with no precedent is beyond pointless.

Thank you. This 'dark' nonsense has really overshadowed what should be a time for DC fans to celebrate the fact that their major characters are finally going to hit the screens. All I'm hearing is people crying when the milk hasn't even been spilled yet. All this prevention is better than the cure thing is crazy talk, especially when nothing's been diagnosed in the first place.

 

[GL1]

I'm pretty sure they've missed the point, honestly. The focus was on darkness, and that's not the appeal. Plain and simple. Will they come out with something decent anyway? Most likely. SR wasn't very good, but it wasn't exactly nails on a chalkboard, either. But their ability to come out with a good movie doesn't negate the fact that... WB seems distracted with TDK's darkness and misses the fact that its a serious take on a deep character with several great things going for it.

Now... I don't blame them. TDK wasn't exactly faithful to the mythos. Its no wonder TDK thinks being faithful isn't important.

 

[The Major]

GL1:

TDK was faithful enough for Nolan's realistic style. It got the spirit right, the movie made sense and the characters were good versions which were recognizable.

 

[REDophile]

Just because WB is saying all these solo movies in the pipeline are going to be "dark" doesn't mean they won't have bits of humor. TDK had its moments of comic relief while sticking to the gritty nature of the character.
Bits of dry humor spice up superhero movies as long as they aren't entirely dependent on it like Batman and Robin.
A few stating the obvious, making light of the secret identity quips can easily be part of GL, Flash and WW. Berlanti, Guggenheim and Green probably threw in some of these types of one-liners in the GL script. I'm talking about subtle comments, like "nice ring, where did you get it?" By no means should they carry a script, though.

 

[GL1]

GL1:

TDK was faithful enough for Nolan's realistic style. It got the spirit right, the movie made sense and the characters were good versions which were recognizable.

"Faithful enough" is the target for WB then. Keep that in mind when they roll out some of their films in the hands of, perhaps, less talented teams.

 

[Katsuro]

Now... I don't blame them. TDK wasn't exactly faithful to the mythos. Its no wonder TDK thinks being faithful isn't important.

How was TDK not faithful? What, because

Spoiler

Joker had some scars. And Two-Face died early?

That's hardly not faithful to the mythos. Joker's characterization was spot on, and the story wasn't that far off from The Long Halloween, at least the Harvey Dent aspect of it. I'd call it pretty damn faithful.

 

[Ben Breeck]

Wonder Woman, while her personal beliefs and principles are too complex to reduce to soundbites, tends to see matters in terms of absolutes, of black and white. Superman may be a (nearly) invincible alien, and Batman richer than Croesus, but each was raised in America to American values. Wonder Woman wasn't. She was raised on Thymescria to their interpretation of Classical Greek values. Her outlook should be at least as alien as that of the Pre Crisis Shining Knight, Manitou Raven, or Silver Age Hawkman.

Each time she killed a human being that individual showed an utter lack of remose for his/her actions, an utter lack of empathy for his/her victims, and was either threataning a prone hostage with death or else or (in the case of Maxwell Lord) had his finger on the figurative "Nuclear Button." Superman wanted to reason with him, while Batman was working on a way to disable Brother Eye and leave him without leverage without killing him, so that he could suffer in prison. Wonder Woman simply took the fastest course that harmed no innocents.

And, aside from Mr. Lord, every time she killed, the Amazons demoted her at least for a time.

 

[Ben Breeck]

Superman is an idealist. That's why he behaves the way he does. That said, I would love to see a movie Supes written up mentally the way he was in Action Comics #12, the famous Superman and the Lemon story.

 

[The Major]

And, aside from Mr. Lord, every time she killed, the Amazons demoted her at least for a time.

The Amazons had no problem with her killing Medousa or Ares' son.

What exactly do you mean by demoted?

 

[The Guard]

I believe that she was removed from her status as ambassador. Similar to what happened in KINGDOM COME.

 

[p4poetic]

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 the same exact way. It's almost like following a non existing trend for the sake of marketability, and losing sight of their characters for the dollar bill $$$. What they think the public wants due to one film/medium's success can be applied to all of their franchises.

 

[The Major]

I feel the same exact way. It's almost like following a non existing trend for the sake of marketability, and losing sight of their characters for the sake of the dollar bill $$$. What they think the public wants due to one film/medium's success can be applied to all of their franchises.

That $$$ will be limited at best, non-existent at worst and possibly kill lesser franchises with untapped potential for decades unless they do things very carefully.

TDK's darkness can fit some franchises but they must recognize that ones which naturally fit and those which don't. Bertinelli's Huntress, Green Arrow, Kate Spencer's Manhunter, The Outsiders, Simon Dark, Black Alice, Selina Kyle's Catwoman, The Demon could all fit that.

 

[The Guard]

I can't believe so many people took "dark" out of context.

Oh, wait. Yes I can.

 

[Webhead2006]

Yea i know since the news came out many movie sites been taking the "dark" comment a little to seriously.

 

[BATZARRO WWD]

It's exactly what everyone was asking for: Nolan directs everything, everything is as Nolan says or would do, Marvel's plan gets emulated. I don't see why getting what many here were asking for is a worrisome sign. If Warner missed the whole point they wern't the only ones....

 

[Tony Stark]

"We're going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it," he says. That goes for the company's Superman franchise as well."


Um, tell me how to not take that out of context?

This is just a prime example of a movie stuio trying to ride the pretty penny, and it's pathetic.

The point is, executives shouls have absolutely no say in the artistic direction of films. An executives' responsibility should only fall to production budgets being met and not overrun, and to hire creative teams who will oversee the casting of directors and script writers.

Fox had alot of success with the X-men films, and they used that as licence to interject the executives into the creative process, which led to the essential firing of Brian Singer, and the mismanagement of the Fantastic Four franchise.

It should shock no one that not only has WB had the biggest film of the year, they are also owners of the biggest flop of the year in Speed Racer. Warner had absolutely nothing to do with the success of TDK, and no one here should mistakenly think otherwise.

Unfortunatly DC isn't a big enough company to get out from under the Time-Warner belt, but if they could it would be the best thing for them.

 

[Evil Twin]

"We're going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it," he says. That goes for the company's Superman franchise as well."


Um, tell me how to not take that out of context?

This is just a prime example of a movie stuio trying to ride the pretty penny, and it's pathetic.

The point is, executives shouls have absolutely no say in the artistic direction of films. An executives' responsibility should only fall to production budgets being met and not overrun, and to hire creative teams who will oversee the casting of directors and script writers.

Fox had alot of success with the X-men films, and they used that as licence to interject the executives into the creative process, which led to the essential firing of Brian Singer, and the mismanagement of the Fantastic Four franchise.

It should shock no one that not only has WB had the biggest film of the year, they are also owners of the biggest flop of the year in Speed Racer. Warner had absolutely nothing to do with the success of TDK, and no one here should mistakenly think otherwise.

Unfortunatly DC isn't a big enough company to get out from under the Time-Warner belt, but if they could it would be the best thing for them.

Umm, what are you trying to argue here. WB left Nolan alone to do his thing and left the Wachowskis alone to do their thing. One worked, one didn't. That's not exactly a sign of a company being heavy handed and interfering. Heck, WB is probably the polar opposite of Fox as far as being hands off.

The "dark and brooding" comments bother me too. Particularly the implied idea that that's the best way to present each character. That said, we're probably making too much of an off hand comment and should judge them on what they actually do.

DC being with WB is the best thing for them. Yeah, it doesn't always get all the movies made that we want, but they've also never been on the brink of bankruptcy either, had their most important properties tied up with other companies, and have a consistent outlet for things like animation and live action television.

 

[The Guard]

"We're going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it,"

Read between the lines, people.

And look up the definition of brooding. It doesn't mean what most of you think it means.

 

[Red Mask]

Let's wait to see what comes next. I think "Watchmen" is the be all and end all of the cynical superhero concept. Anything after that should either be tragedy or family fun.

 

[Ben Breeck]

Oh, There's still The Authority, not to mention the original Juistice League "Monarch" storyline.

Not to mention most of the Alan Moore Swamp Thing run.