Future of DC Films

[DieSmiling]

I rather have solo films first. I can even do without JL as long as I only get my solo films.It's more important to have each hero all by himself than to cram them together like a bunch of characters who can't manage things on their own.

I may agree that Flash doesn't need to be that expensive. But Wonder Woman is one of the characters that are in need of a higher budget to be done justice. The others are Hawkman and Aquaman.

I agree about solo films, but I think barring some miraculous turnaround that's looking unlikely due to GL.

 

[Willi Berg]

I agree about solo films, but I think barring some miraculous turnaround that's looking unlikely due to GL.

Right. WB are probably even more worried about launching their solo movies now that they might want to launch them all at once in a teamup movie. But I think that was their plan anyway, at least with Aquaman and Wonder Woman.

I think there is still a chance that Flash may get his solo movie. As for a GL sequel, maybe they won't rush into it as soon as they were expecting, since they're probably seeing the compromise with the budget on something this effects-heavy has a lot of repercussions. They might see how expensive a GL sequel will be to get right.

Then again, the same could be said for a Justice League movie.

I think there is a way to make Wonder Woman with a lower budget. It really does depend on their approach.

 

[kedrell]

They just need to go away and take a good long hard look at themselves and how they are approaching all this and then come back and try again with a smarter approach(probably for a Flash movie).

I said it in the GL forums and I'll say it here: Having GL be their first property they try...WAS NUTS! Of the 5 most usable superheroes they own(Supes, Bats, Flash, WW & GL) he is the most out there concept to try. I'm sorry, but dispite what RDJ said in 2008...you do not run before you can walk. That's ass-backwards.

It's like if instead of Iron Man in 2008, Marvel had made Thor their opening salvo. You do the easier heroes first and nail them down, all the while paying attention to what works and doesn't so it can inform your future efforts. Then you expand later into more out-there stuff. 2011 should have been the year they made a Flash(much easier to get right and far less out-there) movie.

 

[Airwings]

To begin with a Flash film instead of GL should have been better yes.
And in my wild imagination there should have been a Green Arrow in the beginning of the year, not Green Hornet. But that only exists in a better world

 

[TheComicbookKid]

They just need to go away and take a good long hard look at themselves and how they are approaching all this and then come back and try again with a smarter approach(probably for a Flash movie).

I said it in the GL forums and I'll say it here: Having GL be their first property they try...WAS NUTS! Of the 5 most usable superheroes they own(Supes, Bats, Flash, WW & GL) he is the most out there concept to try. I'm sorry, but dispite what RDJ said in 2008...you do not run before you can walk. That's ass-backwards.

It's like if instead of Iron Man in 2008, Marvel had made Thor their opening salvo. You do the easier heroes first and nail them down, all the while paying attention to what works and doesn't so it can inform your future efforts. Then you expand later into more out-there stuff. 2011 should have been the year they made a Flash(much easier to get right and far less out-there) movie.

Except they haven't technically nailed Supes though in hindsight I'm sure that gross seems more appealing.

 

[Willi Berg]

They just need to go away and take a good long hard look at themselves and how they are approaching all this and then come back and try again with a smarter approach(probably for a Flash movie).

I said it in the GL forums and I'll say it here: Having GL be their first property they try...WAS NUTS! Of the 5 most usable superheroes they own(Supes, Bats, Flash, WW & GL) he is the most out there concept to try. I'm sorry, but dispite what RDJ said in 2008...you do not run before you can walk. That's ass-backwards.

It's like if instead of Iron Man in 2008, Marvel had made Thor their opening salvo. You do the easier heroes first and nail them down, all the while paying attention to what works and doesn't so it can inform your future efforts. Then you expand later into more out-there stuff. 2011 should have been the year they made a Flash(much easier to get right and far less out-there) movie.

You make a great point. It should've been the Flash. It's disheartening reading that they cut out GL scenes because they ran out of money for effects. We heard all the time and effort it was taking to get the effects right. Then have people complaining that it was too much CGI and Oa felt like a soundstage etc.

I would love to see Flash coming together the right way. But it will be hard to muster the same kind of enthusiasm after GL.

 

[kedrell]

To begin with a Flash film instead of GL should have been better yes.
And in my wild imagination there should have been a Green Arrow in the beginning of the year, not Green Hornet. But that only exists in a better world

I bet a lot of people initially thought GH was a DC film. He DID have a crossover with Adam West's Batman, after all.

 

[kedrell]

Except they haven't technically nailed Supes though in hindsight I'm sure that gross seems more appealing.

They nailed him once(though few remaining at WB are still around who can remeber just how they pulled it off). And yes, SR will end up being far less of a financial hit than GL is likely to be. SR may have eventually broke even. I doubt GL will...ever. It's a larger version of Speed Racer(another film that will never see the light of profitability).

 

[Airwings]

Yes, I thought GH was too, but he doesn't belong to DC/Warner.

But this film should not have been made. It would have been so much better with Green Arrow.. Not just as a warm-up to this summer's Flash, he could stand on his own as well. GA is also cheaper to make than a summer blockbuster. I am sure that Warner could afford both of them this year, but they decided to go with someting else.

GA would have been a bigger success than GH, I am sure of it. And not to forget, he would be the first superhero archer on the big screen, months before Hawkeye's cameo in Thor.

 

[superion]

I don't believe Flash would have been easier to do than Green Lantern. Super speed is a lousy power for live action. DC can't figure out how to make a animated Flash movie interesting.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

They nailed him once(though few remaining at WB are still around who can remeber just how they pulled it off). And yes, SR will end up being far less of a financial hit than GL is likely to be. SR may have eventually broke even. I doubt GL will...ever. It's a larger version of Speed Racer(another film that will never see the light of profitability).

Other than distribution, Warner Bros. had nothing to do with the Christopher Reeve films.

Those were for the most part independent productions made by the Salkinds (Cannon produced IV). WB sold off the Superman film rights to the Salkinds in the early 70's and didn't reacquire them until 1993.

Superman Returns is technically the first (and at this point, the only) Superman film produced by Warner Bros.

 

[Kyle Rayner]

Everyone here has given a good opinion to the GL films and where is DC headed or wishes to go on foward. DC is owned by WB, financing the movies are not a problem. They can see the number of money that their publications make, that is where they know what fanboys are buying. Whenever is GL, Flash or Aquaman these character had have fanbases all over the world for years: everytime DC cancels a book they later revive as #1 the book sells fast.

How can they expect to move foward if they continue recycling the same characters? After Batman Begins up until the Dark Knight Batman was getting better backup financially in both films, television and video games.

Granted DC tried hard with Jonah Hex, which flopped bad. They took a different approach with Constantine. Green Lantern should not be their final stop, they should try to continue with the next era of heroes. There is a market for the superhero movies, fans will love it and new fans will enjoy it and even become fans themselves. Is a matter of taking a chance and give it all.

 

[Anubis]

I don't believe Flash would have been easier to do than Green Lantern. Super speed is a lousy power for live action. DC can't figure out how to make a animated Flash movie interesting.

Clearly you've never read a Flash comic. Guys probably more powerful than Superman. All the stuff he can do, when explained to the audience, should have them leaving the film understand just how powerful speed actually can be.

 

[KangConquers]

I'm sad to say that of the non-Supe/ Bat heroes on DC's roster, GL is one of very few that interest me. I really don't care for WW at all, and I think Flash is kind of a thin character, with villains that don't particularly excite me. That said there are some properties further down the roster list that excite me:

-DC has always had a sort of passive aggressive relationship with Captain Marvel based on bad blood stemming back to the 1940s. I think they need to let by gones be by gones, and give the big red cheese a moive of his own.

-At one point I was hopeful that a successful GL film combined with a successful Thor on the Marvel side would lead DC to consider a cinematic take on Jack Kirby's Fourth World. Sadly, that will NEVER happen, if they can't even get Green Lantern over.

- Even though it's viewed as laugh worthy by some, I always thought Hawkman's design was bad-ass, and think the character if adapted properly could be pretty cool on the big screen.

These would all interest me much more than a Flash film, personally.

 

[Red Mask]

DC Entertainment is 0-2 if this GL movie turns out to be a flop. The first strike against them being the Wonder Woman pilot.

Oh man. I didn't think DCE had much input on that pilot. Most of the credited producers are related to David E. Kelley's group.

 

[Kyle Rayner]

I'm sad to say that of the non-Supe/ Bat heroes on DC's roster, GL is one of very few that interest me. I really don't care for WW at all, and I think Flash is kind of a thin character, with villains that don't particularly excite me. That said there are some properties further down the roster list that excite me:

-DC has always had a sort of passive aggressive relationship with Captain Marvel based on bad blood stemming back to the 1940s. I think they need to let by gones be by gones, and give the big red cheese a moive of his own.

-At one point I was hopeful that a successful GL film combined with a successful Thor on the Marvel side would lead DC to consider a cinematic take on Jack Kirby's Fourth World. Sadly, that will NEVER happen, if they can't even get Green Lantern over.

- Even though it's viewed as laugh worthy by some, I always thought Hawkman's design was bad-ass, and think the character if adapted properly could be pretty cool on the big screen.

These would all interest me much more than a Flash film, personally.

Hawkman can be made into a very profitable franchise, it has such a good history and characters that it is easy to build upon it. Carter Hall could be played by Dominic Purcell, let him grow his hair back. Kiera Hall can be played Malin Akerman.

Captain Marvel is way overdue, why keep on making Superman Films? Captain Marvel is the closest resemblance to Superman and is a character made for kids! I found a blog where some guy place the names of the actors for the parts, Kevin Duarde or Kellan Lutz for Captain Marvel, Zachary Gordon for Billy, Devon Bostick for Freedy and the Rock is Black Adam. He has constantly shown an interest in playing Black Adam and I would love to see him play a bad ass.

The Flash still needs to be in that fold with Barry or even Jay to begin the franchise.

 

[superion]

Clearly you've never read a Flash comic. Guys probably more powerful than Superman. All the stuff he can do, when explained to the audience, should have them leaving the film understand just how powerful speed actually can be.

I know all about the Flash's power in the comic. Having great power doesn't translate to creating exciting live action scenes. When I watched the JLA and JL Unlimited cartoon they hardly focused on the Flash because his power can't be depicted very well. It's fine on a comic page but not so good in a animated cartoon or live action.

What special effects should they use to depict the Flash's speed. The lame Smallville speeding up the tape or the nearly as lame No Ordinary Family of freezing all the other characters around the person with super speed.

 

[Anubis]

They hardly focused on Flash because they had to somehow show off 7 to 100 other people. GL didn't come off looking too flashy either. Just laser beams and the occasional fist.

To think that Super Speed on film wouldn't look good shows a severe lack of imagination. Imagine running across the ocean? Imagine an infinite mass punch starting in Vegas and ending in Ohio? Vibrating threw walls. Reaching maximum velocity and almost being absorbed by the Speed force? That stuff could be epic.

 

[MadVillainy]

I honestly think if DC wants to try and start another franchise that they should do a Wally West Flash movie

 

[MadVillainy]

Continued from another thread

Remember, just because a character exist, does not mean they are good outside of their medium.

Not about being recognizable isn't the big deal, the big deal is being able to build the character up on film. Iron man and Thor work because they can be brought to life on film and look badass in the here and now without many tweaks. Aquaman isn't Batman with a suit of iron. Aquaman isn't the God of Thunder. These are visuals that work on the big screen. Green Arrow is built around a guy who uses a bow and arrow and dresses like a Renaissance Fair fan.

As to Wonder Woman. First, female lead. Second, Diana works best as Supes and Bats sidekick in the JL. I mean really look at the books. What part of that looks like it would work well on the big screen?

Also you then have to find someone that is as beautiful as Diana and is capable of not looking like a second rate Superman on screen. When you find a woman who is both that beautiful and capable from a physical end, you will have done something very impressive.

As to Flash. A young Wally growing up into the character works best imo. It will allow for the naivete such a story would be calling out for.

I never said that just because a characters exists in comics that it would make a good movie. That's obvious

Aquaman doesnt have to be Batman in a suit of iron or the god of thunder. He can bring great visuals on his own

]

And you do realize they can change the Green Arrow costume, right...

AS far as WW, the female lead thing is a pretty flimsy arguement. People always say female leads dont work, but that's because the films theyre in are bad. I mean Elektra and Catwoman both sucked thats why they werent that successful not because they had female heroes. It cant really be said that a femal lead equals a far less successful move
And there are storylines such as Gods and Mortals and The Circle that one can draw from. I mean she has an over 50 years of book history. ANd besides that theyre is the DTV and the JL show. AS I said before comics are not the books. I mean I dont like the Hellboy books that much but I like the movies

I do agree that Wally would be better. AS you can see in an earlier post I think Wally West as the Flash would be the next best project DC should do. He has all of the Flash's powers plus his story is different then what's been seen before (which is a complain I heard about GL).

For the record, IM not saying WW, Aquaman, WW, etc are sure success stories even if the movies turn out good or even that theyll turn out good for sure. Im saying that they do have the potential for such though

 

[sgaana]

(Following Blackman's lead over here...)

Remember, just because a character exist, does not mean they are good outside of their medium.

Not about being recognizable isn't the big deal, the big deal is being able to build the character up on film. Iron man and Thor work because they can be brought to life on film and look badass in the here and now without many tweaks. Aquaman isn't Batman with a suit of iron. Aquaman isn't the God of Thunder. These are visuals that work on the big screen.

Actually, I'm going to counter with the idea that Aquaman CAN be similar to the God of Thunder -- that "Thor" shows one way to do an Aquaman film and make the character and his milieu stand out amongst superhero films.

The thing that Aquaman has going for him the most, IMO -- and the thing that can make him be taken the most seriously by an audience, also IMO -- is the "King of Atlantis" deal. You do for Atlantis what the "Thor" movie did for Asgard, you go all out in creating something visually wonderful and majestic.

You can keep echoes of Aquaman's orange-and-green suit if you want (primarily, I think, because it's recognizable to the general public, plus the fans would object if you didn't), while changing his overall look to the extent of giving him the beard that makes him look more "King Arthur" than "Ken doll generic superhero". I'd also argue that you skew him a bit OLDER than other DC heroes -- you don't put him in Hal's age-range, or Barry's, or even Bruce's. I'm not saying you make him "old", but you make him just a bit older and give him some experience (here I am comparing him with the "slightly older" RDJ Tony Stark, although obviously, tempermentally, Aquaman can't be anything like Iron Man).

The Aquaman being featured on "Young Justice" right now is a good example of what I'm talking about -- a little older, kingly, with a look set apart from the more "clean cut" heroes, yet not really shaggy or grim. There is no reason a live-action movie Atlantis can't work as well as live-action Asgard did.

Green Arrow is built around a guy who uses a bow and arrow and dresses like a Renaissance Fair fan.

I disagree overall with the objections raised so far to Green Arrow, for a couple of reasons.

First objection: Marvel is "getting there first" with including Hawkeye in The Avengers. Note: we haven't actually SEEN how Marvel is going to use Hawkeye in The Avengers, and given that he is only one of like 6 or more major characters, we have no idea how much he and his particular schtick are going to stand out. (This is not to say that I don't expect him to be good, or memorable. But the film isn't ABOUT him.)

Counter-argument: Marvel giving the general audience a good portrayal of a superhero character who "only" shoots arrows might, in fact, prime the audience to accept the Green Arrow concept even more.

Second objection: he "uses a bow and arrow and dresses like a Renaissance Fair fan". Okay. But on the flip side -- how well do Robin Hood adaptations generally do? (Leaving aside the most recent one, which did not come across visually/iconically as "Robin Hood" at all.) Answer: they do pretty well. Robin Hood is a relatively popular, extremely well-known action/adventure character, and has been for decades.

My conclusion: DC would actually be ahead of the game with the fact that they could market Green Arrow as "a Robin Hood movie set in the present", particularly if they really hit the sweet spot of making a "good old fashioned, fun swashbuckler" film married with a modern setting. Being able to play on the audience familiarity with and fondness for the Robin Hood mythos gives Green Arrow an advantage over Marvel's Hawkeye.

As to Wonder Woman. First, female lead. Second, Diana works best as Supes and Bats sidekick in the JL. I mean really look at the books. What part of that looks like it would work well on the big screen?

Also you then have to find someone that is as beautiful as Diana and is capable of not looking like a second rate Superman on screen. When you find a woman who is both that beautiful and capable from a physical end, you will have done something very impressive.

After watching the cavalcade of eye-gouging disappointment that was the run-up to the recent WW tv show concept getting justifiably and mercifully canned... I could not help but react to Jaime Alexander's Sif in "Thor" with, "well, there's your Wonder Woman right there -- get on that, DC".

Once again, "Thor" points out that even the general audience will accept a character with "mythological" underpinnings and a substantial background in a really out-there, fantasy-esque world. Wonder Woman, just like Aquaman, should, IMO, capitalize on what "Thor" showed audiences will go for -- give us a Woman Woman rooted in the DC version of the Greek mythos, and pull out all the stops. Make it tasteful and interesting, make her kick ass. Do all the things for her movie that "Thor" did right (pick a director with a passion for the material; get a good overall cast).

And don't underestimate the importance of the fact that even by herself, Wonder Woman has a huge amount of recognition with the general audience, and as a solo female superhero, she is really, really important to a LOT of people. Maybe not to you personally (generic you, I'm not singling anyone out here). But she is absolutely important. And here, I think DC would do well to capitalize on the fact that she is THE most famous female superhero in the world; far above any of the female heroes that Marvel has.

 

[Timstuff]

I hold to it that if they are going to do an Aquaman movie, he needs to look like this:

Making Aquaman look like a badass barbarian IMO was the best thing DC ever did for the character. And like most drastic but worthwhile changes, it has been undone by fanboys who grew up and got jobs at DC.

 

[MadVillainy]

I like his look in Young Justice and BATB.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Clearly you've never read a Flash comic. Guys probably more powerful than Superman. All the stuff he can do, when explained to the audience, should have them leaving the film understand just how powerful speed actually can be.

Agreed. Speed trumps just about everything.

 

[sgaana]

Making Aquaman look like a badass barbarian IMO was the best thing DC ever did for the character. And like most drastic but worthwhile changes, it has been undone by fanboys who grew up and got jobs at DC.

I'm a fan of that look as well, honestly. But it's not "Aquaman" to the general public.

Now, you may well say, "yes, but to the general public, orange-and-green Aquaman is also a joke", and alas, even as an Aquaman fan, I can't dispute that. (I can only hope the state of affairs will gradually improve.)

That's why I like the compromise of the look we see in YJ (and yes, BATB).