Goyer says All DC films at Warner Bros. are on Hold

[stargazer]

So now people are blaming Nolan??? The one guy who has produced WB's only real hit with their superhero genre thus far? That's a joke...

.

eh? No, Donner, Lester and Burton were the first. Their Superman and Batman films were huge hits in their time.

This hasn't exactly been overnight, they've had a long time since Superman Returns left theaters, not to mention the development of Green Lantern. They already have been taking their time.

Exactly. If they don't hurry up and figure things up soon, the Marvel heroes are going to totally dominate and steal the DC heroes' thunder. I'm sure there is room for all, though...

Maybe DC just doesn't feel they can compete with the other tentpoles these days in regards to their characters... SR was destroyed by POTC and outgrossed by even X-3. There are a million and one active summer franchises right now that have to be reckoned with. Maybe they don't feel that either GL or Supes can hold his own. I have said it once... I'll keep saying it... Marvel can't keep this up forever. Once Marvel starts making pure crap that flops (and even though X-3/SM3 were bad, they still made decent money)... then would be a good time for DC to make their move. Now isn't that time.

But just because SR was a dramatic and character driven superhero film, that DIDN'T EVEN HAVE a supervillain, therefore no superfights. That's easy to fix in the next one. Superman can be a more profitable franchise if needed. And X3 didn't outgrossed SR by much, supervillains and superfights and all included.

 

[Red Mask]

Actually there's a whole list of people who were the producers for Dark Knight.

1. Kevin De La Noy .... executive producer
2. Jordan Goldberg .... associate producer
3. Philip Lee .... line producer: Hong Kong
4. Karl McMillan .... production associate producer
5. Benjamin Melniker .... executive producer
6. Christopher Nolan .... producer
7. Charles Roven .... producer
8. Emma Thomas .... producer
9. Thomas Tull .... executive producer
10. Michael E. Uslan ... executive producer

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Actually there's a whole list of people who were the producers for Dark Knight.

1. Kevin De La Noy .... executive producer
2. Jordan Goldberg .... associate producer
3. Philip Lee .... line producer: Hong Kong
4. Karl McMillan .... production associate producer
5. Benjamin Melniker .... executive producer
6. Christopher Nolan .... producer
7. Charles Roven .... producer
8. Emma Thomas .... producer
9. Thomas Tull .... executive producer
10. Michael E. Uslan ... executive producer

A lot of those titles are meaningless...

 

[jmc]

I was with you until this. Marvel isn't playing it safe. Hiring Downey as the star of a $150 million+ budgeted film wasn't a ''safe'' decision. Making a Thor film isn't ''playing it safe''. And what does ''little room for expansion'' mean? You're implying that these films won't be great because of the crossovers. The crossovers are what the fans are talking about because they're exciting, but they're not what Marvel and their writers are focusing on. They're focusing on the stories - otherwise they wouldn't have hired Kenneth ****ing Branagh.

Jesus, does every thread need to have stupid anti-Marvel crap thrown into it?

No, hiring Downey Jr was a good decision. Marvels films are not going to be anything more than what Iron Man was. Iron Man was a good film, but a safe film, a very stand action/adventure film that was elevated by Robert Downey Jr performance, had it not been him in the role I'm betting the film wouldn't have been received as well as it did. Hulk was pretty much the same, almost a stock movie. Basically I'm saying Marvel are not going to be pushing any envelopes, they can't afford to do so. Marvel are in a more precarious position than WB, Marvel have no other types of films in their line except comic adaptations, and a major flop could all but cripple the film division, they are going to play it safe, they can't afford to give a director free reign and take a character on a path that is different in tone and direction ala Nolan's Batman. It doesn't matter who they hire or who they cast Marvel are going to keep a very tight ship, they're not going to let the directors go too far outside the box they have in mind, the films are all going to be of similar tone and similar style, and that could become boring very quickly.

 

[Kevin Smith]

^ Because somehow his decision to do a grounded Batman film that has made millions seems to have killed off any chance of solo films for other characters to be made. Good old fanboy logic, yeah, Nolan's the one to blame for the lack of GL or FL films being made.

He doesn't want any other DC films made that reference Batman when WB is trying to get a gameplan together that incorporates Batman. They won't make any more DC films unless they have a strategy, and Batman is part of that strategy and Nolan doesn't want to play along or share his Batman - ever. Not now or sometime after his "vision" is done, he doesn't ever want them to use "his" Batman in something like a JLA movie or World's Finest movie. Which is why I was cool with recasting in the first place because there was no way that his Batman would work in a JLA film, and he even said that. Now because DC wants to do things the Marvel way and Nolan doesn't we're getting more delays.

 

[jmc]

Nolan's Batman is it's own beast. If WB are smart they'll forgo any 'universe' and simply concentrate on developing solid solo franchises.

 

[Chewy]

No, hiring Downey Jr was a good decision. Marvels films are not going to be anything more than what Iron Man was. Iron Man was a good film, but a safe film, a very stand action/adventure film that was elevated by Robert Downey Jr performance, had it not been him in the role I'm betting the film wouldn't have been received as well as it did. Hulk was pretty much the same, almost a stock movie. Basically I'm saying Marvel are not going to be pushing any envelopes, they can't afford to do so. Marvel are in a more precarious position than WB, Marvel have no other types of films in their line except comic adaptations, and a major flop could all but cripple the film division, they are going to play it safe, they can't afford to give a director free reign and take a character on a path that is different in tone and direction ala Nolan's Batman. It doesn't matter who they hire or who they cast Marvel are going to keep a very tight ship, they're not going to let the directors go too far outside the box they have in mind, the films are all going to be of similar tone and similar style, and that could become boring very quickly.

I didn't say Downey wasn't a good decision, I said it wasn't a safe decision.

And I vehemently disagree with the bolded part. Their first two films are what they are because they fit the characters - a chase film about a man trying to find a cure and a light, fun origin flick about a billionaire who tries to set his life back on track and right a few percieved wrongs. They shared a similar atmosphere because they were meant to be set in the same universe in the same timeframe, but they had different tones - Hulk was a serious flick with a few light moments scattered in, whereas IM was a light flick with some serious moments as Stark is faced with a few harsh realities. Let's look at what their next four pictures are
-A superhero sequel, which greatly expands on the world and scale of the first
-A fantasy superhero film in the vein of Lord of the Rings
-A WWII film starring a superhero
-A superhero team-up flick

They all sound the same to me

 

[jmc]

All I can say is that if you're expecting a bunch of directors to be given free reign and take each character on their own unique direction you're going to be disappointed. Marvel is in charge, not the directors, and that could come back to bite them in the arse.

 

[Chewy]

Directors being given free reign isn't necessarily a good thing. WB seems to always take this route, and for every Batman Begins or Superman: The Movie we get there's a Batman Forever or a Superman Returns.

Directors like Favreau & Branagh interacting with and receiving input from Kevin Feige, Matt Fraction or JMS is no different than Nolan interacting with Goyer.

 

[Jay Lifestar]

About the Shazam project for anyone that may know ... was that still going to be put out by New Line Cinema (a division of Time Warner like wb films) or was it switched so as to come out under the "WB" umbrella such as well. Never been a huge fan of that particular character, but wonder if the box office performances of movies such as Chronicles of Narnia 2, Journey to the center of the Earth (which did okay in the us but didn't put up "Harry Potter-esque" numbers) - which seemed to be aimed at a demographic segment (at least minimally) a movie like Shazam may have wanted to cherry pick - factored into the decision (regarding that movie in particular) or if it just got caught up in the same "renovation protcol" as all the other projects mentioned.

And to veer slightly off topic ... A Demon movie with Liam Neeson as Jason Blood would be cool. Have a great weekend, Guys.

 

[The Major]

Why does WB need another level of bureaucracy? The head of production still is going to make the final call and I fail to see the purpose of another division. It's not like WB has a division of Drama. Or a division of Harry Potter. Or a division of Comedy. Heck, WB just collapsed New Line into them.

You're still seeing DC as a company which only produces superheroes. It can do more then that. Not that the genre itself is so limited. They can do espionage, horror, fantasy, comedy, drama and sci-fi properties within the super-hero genre. That's more variety then Harry Potter. The sad fact is that properties like this would have a beter chance of being seen as legitimate if they weren't connected to DC IMO. Being from a comic book is still persona non grata at WB, no matter how much money TDK rakes in.

What they need is someone that the head of production respects that can make a good case for comic book films and can explain why the direction they're going in is the right direction. It doesn't even need to be the only job the guy does, but finding an executive that's a DC fan and giving him some area of responsibility in development makes a whole lot more sense than a division devoted to a couple of films a year,

A DC branch would help widdle down the decisions before it got to the WB brass. But it shouldn't just be for movies, but for all media based entertainment like animation, tv shows and video-games. This is vital for getting the lesser franchises into the multimedia formats for exposure WB has refused to give them. The animated division is the only branch which is actually making positive movement with this, WB's live action tv and movie branches are failing miserably.

Good luck getting WB people to research DC to understand its potential. They won't get that committed IMO. A better idea would have WB train some creative DC people for this function since they aren't allergic to the idea of reading comics to do their jobs.

the biggest franchise of which is functioning just fine without need of a new division.

Batman isn't all the DCU has to offer. They need to diversify like Marvel has been doing. The score is 2 to 5 with more coming in the next few years.

 

[Steelsheen]

I think you can get Nolan and Bale involved, but you need to develop the other properties and come up with a long term plan before you do. You're not going to impress these guys with the idea of a Batman who can exist in the same universe as Superman, the Green Lantern, and Wonder Woman with a hastily put together outline at best. Nolan has already said that he's open to the idea in the future because it's worked in the books.

i'm not sure about Nolan (because i honestly couldnt recall), but i'm pretty sure Bale was open to the suggestion of reprising Batman for a JL movie. several interviews has recorded this. however since the brouhaha between Nolan and WB over JL he's kept mum and the only thing he'd say from there on end is that the Nolan Batman universe is separate from the JL universe. it was painfully clear that Bale was caught between the studio and his director, and given that he's done several movies with Nolan already and enjoys a good working relationship with him he cast his loyalty on Nolan's side.

Lemme just say one thing... I don't know why you guys think it is such a big deal to get Bale in a JLA movie. The character has been recasted how many times thus far? I kind of lost count... Look... Bale/Nolan won't be a part of it... who cares? It's not that big a deal it really isn't. I still think the guy they will get to play Batman will be grounded to a believable level regardless of how far out there the plot is. I wouldn't rule out realistic Batman type villains in a JL movie either... villains that may even have a connection to Nolan's films... like Talia Al Ghul. The key will be getting the other movies off the ground and CONNECTING those movies... from the beginning. Like Marvel is doing. Whether its Superman/GL/WW... whoever... one of those franchises has to be the launching pad for the rest... most likely Superman. Then you can go from there... that is obviously the first step. Getting Bale/Nolan involved is a pipe dream... let that pass and move on.

the tricky part isnt about finding a good actor to be as convincing a Batman/ Bruce Wayne as Bale is, its more so if general audience who have been accustomed and accepted a certain actor in the role would be as accommodating to the new guy. case in point: Christopher Reeve and Brandon Routh. for all of SR's faults, Routh was a pretty good Superman. but it was an uphill climb for him to be deemed remotely acceptable by the fans and the general public. and until now some people still couldnt accept him as the new Superman, maybe because of how SR did at the box office, but more so because he's still being held against the standard set by Reeve, which is near impossible to reach. its exactly the same situation now with Bale and whoever-will-be-the-new-Batman. in order for the general audience to move on from Bale's Batman a considerable amount of time needs to have passed by. 10 years is still considered too short. its been nearly 20 years since Reeve was last seen as Superman and people still cant get over him and accept his movie replacement.

I would like to see Christian Bale's Batman in a Justice League movie, but that could't happen. In his own universe, that Batman is a badass, but, in a movie with Superman and Wonder-Woman, i think he'd be too weak, and Bale, as far as i see, is not a big fan of superhero Batman, so, i doubt he'd be a part of it. But i think the JLA movie should be made, and Batman should be in it. He's been a member since the late 60s. He must be in it.

as i mentioned above, Bale, in his words, "would consider" having his Batman in a JL movie. he said it several times. and dont worry about Bale or his Batman being too weak. in a superhero team-up movie, they usually amp up the abilities of one and tweak down the abilities of the other to form a coordinated, cohesive unit. my biggest fear in the whole match up is that they will treat Superman as just brawns, Batman is all brains and Wonder Woman is the sex appeal

You keep saying that, but a division is a big deal. Why does WB need a division for 1 to perhaps 3 movies a year, if we're including Vertigo? And, what's the point, when they'll be answerable to the head of production, anyways? The same head of production that's running things now? Other than having a few highly paid executives, what's going to change?

Frankly, I can tell that there aren't many people here that have had any experience in real business. A Division isn't a magic bullet answer to anything in a corporation like WB.

And, don't think that WB is going to fire their highly successful head of production just because fanboys are whining that they're not getting their superhero movies fast enough. It's not WB's mission statement to make successful superhero movies, but to make successful movies in a wide variety of genres. Something that WB is among the best at in the world.

WB is a large corporation, and its is precisely because it doesnt have a division/ department/ unit that primarily handles DC franchises for motion pictures that their batting average for successful comic book movies have been subpar. you bring in hollywood creative talent who knows jack squat about a franchise and what does WB do? have the person walk into the DC offices and talk to the comic book guys whose primary concern is comic books storylines, pacing and deadlines. and coordinating creative vision, not to mention logistical details between these two parties i bet is a nightmare. so why not have a unit whose primary function is to interface between the motion picture talent and comic franchise gurus? the thing is there is one person who is doing this (i'm not quite sure who it is anymore, is it Paul Levitz?). also, that department doesnt have to just be concerned with only live action comic movies, it should be in charge of any DC franchise that will be done in motion picture format-- that includes TV animation, movie animation, direct to DVD movies, live action TV series and live action movies. that will certainly justify the operational cost of the new-- small--department. they can transform the current DC Animation for this particular role and just expand its authority and responsibilities to the mediums i mentioned above.

About the Shazam project for anyone that may know ... was that still going to be put out by New Line Cinema (a division of Time Warner like wb films) or was it switched so as to come out under the "WB" umbrella such as well. Never been a huge fan of that particular character, but wonder if the box office performances of movies such as Chronicles of Narnia 2, Journey to the center of the Earth (which did okay in the us but didn't put up "Harry Potter-esque" numbers) - which seemed to be aimed at a demographic segment (at least minimally) a movie like Shazam may have wanted to cherry pick - factored into the decision (regarding that movie in particular) or if it just got caught up in the same "renovation protcol" as all the other projects mentioned.

you may want to read up on the Shazam thread in this forum to know more, but at the time of New Line's integration into WB the reigns for the Shazam film was turned over to WB as well. pretty much the only franchise i'm aware of that NL still holds are those for The Hobbit.

 

[The Major]

Maybe DC just doesn't feel they can compete with the other tentpoles these days in regards to their characters...

Don't you mean WB? I'm sure the DC staff would disagree about that.

If WB does feel that inadequate with DC they should seriously start researching what DC has because they can compete just fine. It's WB who's dropping the ball for DC on this.

SR was destroyed by POTC and outgrossed by even X-3.

So what?

X-men 3 was a major franchise Singer's successul X-men films boght good will for. Without Singer's films the movie would not have had the amount of success.

Superman isn't all DC has to offer for super-hero films, either.

There are a million and one active summer franchises right now that have to be reckoned with.

And they have the resources with DC to do that. They just aren't using it properly.

Maybe they don't feel that either GL or Supes can hold his own.

Which goes back to their not understanding the properties.

I have said it once... I'll keep saying it... Marvel can't keep this up forever. Once Marvel starts making pure crap that flops (and even though X-3/SM3 were bad, they still made decent money)... then would be a good time for DC to make their move.

They need to stop waiting for marvel to screw up and use the lessons leaned from Nolan and Marvel itself into making better films. Sitting around doing nothing just makes the fans angry and WB waste a valuable resource.

Now isn't that time.

Then they need to change whatever needs to be done to make that time happen. Sitting on their ass wont make them any money with DC franchises.

 

[The Major]

Directors being given free reign isn't necessarily a good thing. WB seems to always take this route, and for every Batman Begins or Superman: The Movie we get there's a Batman Forever or a Superman Returns.

Agreed.

Directors like Favreau & Branagh interacting with and receiving input from Kevin Feige, Matt Fraction or JMS is no different than Nolan interacting with Goyer.

I disagree.

Goyer is primarily a Hollywood writer, not a comic writer IIRC. Same with JMS.

Fraction, Mark Millar and Bendis talked with Fav was a huge step since they were actual comic writers. He was in contact with regular fans with MySpace, as well.

Feige is a Hollywood producer, not regular comic fan or a professional comic writer.

 

[jmc]

Directors being given free reign isn't necessarily a good thing. WB seems to always take this route, and for every Batman Begins or Superman: The Movie we get there's a Batman Forever or a Superman Returns.

It's better than having them held to a tone and directional guideline, give them the script, let them give their own spin on the character, their own tone and style, let them paint their own canvas, you've got better chance of something unique being created instead of standard stock action film. As for WB always taking the 'free reign route', Batman Forever was WB decision, they wanted candy coated, Burton wouldn't do it, so they hire some hack who did. And Superman wasn't so much free reign as it was a bone headed WB decision to green light a semi-sequel to a 30 year old film that had worn out its welcome.

Directors like Favreau & Branagh interacting with and receiving input from Kevin Feige, Matt Fraction or JMS is no different than Nolan interacting with Goyer.

Only difference is Nolan is the one who came up with the tone, style and direction for the character and series, WB virtually let him do what ever. The rest as they say is history. This is how it should be, let the characters roam in their own space. Marvel set the tone and type of movie for their universe with Iron Man, and as I said, it could get old very quickly, at the same time I get why they have to stick to that type of movie, it's worked once (and a 'bit' if you include Hulk) but they've also painted themselves into a corner, they now can't afford to chance their arm and go in a different tonal direction for another character, hell, even Thor and Captain America are going to be a struggle even with the same style and tone, they're too small a movie studio to do so, on top of that they've set themselves in my opinion unrealistic deadlines.

 

[REDophile]

Nolan said that his version of Batman "lives in a world where superheroes simply don't exist." The problem with WB is that they want to use his philosophy or film-making style for all DC movies without taking that into consideration. Nolan doesn't care about the rest of the DC universe, he wants Batman to have nothing to do with it. Realistically speaking, he doesn't want to think of his films as a superhero franchise.

So to a certain extent, WB has the wrong idea. But everything that has been revealed about what the GL movie would be doesn't seem to be influenced in anyway by Nolan's Batman.

 

[jmc]

The same philosophy should be applied to every character. They all should be the sole 'hero' of their respective 'universes'.

 

[Heretic]

Since it doesnt deserve its own thread...

Goyer DID get my $16 tonight. My girl and I saw The Unborn...and it is actually worse than what the reviews are saying. Not only is it poorly written and horribly acted, its just not scary. Every single thing that could potentially...maybe...scare me was shown in the commercials.

I still say the girl that stars in it is smokin hot though. I keep hearing that she looks like an ugly Megan Fox...but in my opinion...and this wont be popular...I think shes actually hotter due to the lack of bad tattoos.

 

[Chewy]

It's better than having them held to a tone and directional guideline, give them the script, let them give their own spin on the character, their own tone and style, let them paint their own canvas, you've got better chance of something unique being created instead of standard stock action film. As for WB always taking the 'free reign route', Batman Forever was WB decision, they wanted candy coated, Burton wouldn't do it, so they hire some hack who did. And Superman wasn't so much free reign as it was a bone headed WB decision to green light a semi-sequel to a 30 year old film that had worn out its welcome.

In other words, they gave Singer free reiign to do whatever he wanted and what he wanted to do was ridiculous.

Only difference is Nolan is the one who came up with the tone, style and direction for the character and series, WB virtually let him do what ever.

Only because what he wanted to do was basically the opposite of Batman & Robin. They had been looking for a a darker, more realistic Batman for years. That's what Aronofsky pitched them (which eventually fell through), and that's what Nolan pitched them.

The rest as they say is history. This is how it should be, let the characters roam in their own space. Marvel set the tone and type of movie for their universe with Iron Man,

Untrue. They gave Favreau a lot of freedom and he & Feige put together a "brain trust" of Marvel comics/Iron Man guys and eventually the tone/world landed on what we saw.

and as I said, it could get old very quickly, at the same time I get why they have to stick to that type of movie, it's worked once (and a 'bit' if you include Hulk) but they've also painted themselves into a corner, they now can't afford to chance their arm and go in a different tonal direction for another character, hell, even Thor and Captain America are going to be a struggle even with the same style and tone, they're too small a movie studio to do so, on top of that they've set themselves in my opinion unrealistic deadlines.

Yet again, you are assuming this based on the similarities between the two flicks they've produced thus far. Captain America & Thor are about as different as you can get from the standard superhero flick and are not going to have the same style & tone.

 

[Octoberist]

an 'ugly' (i guess it's for the irony) version Megan Fox? That's weird because Odette Especially if Odette is from more exotic mixed ethnicity than Ms. Fox.

 

[jmc]

In other words, they gave Singer free reiign to do whatever he wanted and what he wanted to do was ridiculous.
Only because what he wanted to do was basically the opposite of Batman & Robin. They had been looking for a a darker, more realistic Batman for years. That's what Aronofsky pitched them (which eventually fell through), and that's what Nolan pitched them.
Untrue. They gave Favreau a lot of freedom and he & Feige put together a "brain trust" of Marvel comics/Iron Man guys and eventually the tone/world landed on what we saw.
Yet again, you are assuming this based on the similarities between the two flicks they've produced thus far. Captain America & Thor are about as different as you can get from the standard superhero flick and are not going to have the same style & tone.

We shall wait and see then.

 

[solidsnake86]

Right now, thor has just as much announced as Green Lantern and was actually behind until they hired the director. When the cast of Thor is announced and we still hear nothing about GL after a month I would start too panic. It's still January and lets be realistic, the only movie ready to film was Green Lantern anyways so I don't know whats striking about these comments, sure its disappointing but what can you do.

If Batman or Superman is supposed to come out in 2011 there still a year away from filming. Going by the schedule of Batman Begins or Iron Man, we should hear a director being announced sometime this year.

 

[REDophile]

The only reason the comments would be disappointing would be if they meant GL was going on hold. There is too much riding on it and it seems to be on schedule, just as long as we get some casting announcements soon.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Then they need to change whatever needs to be done to make that time happen. Sitting on their ass wont make them any money with DC franchises.

I can almost guarantee Marvel will be dead in the water after the Avengers movie... maybe there will be some Spidey/X-Men movies (which isn't even Marvel but Marvel property so it still counts)... Spiderman sequels will probably end in another B & R considering the direction SM3 took that franchise... maybe we'll get another IM movie... maybe some Avengers sequels, maybe a couple more "A" list character movies... but after that Marvel will have nothing left to burn off and they'll have to turn to their "B/C" list characters. Once that comes then DC can really start making a name for themselves... separate studio and all. Again... there is NO rush for DC to lauch an ambitious slate like that. Just because Batman is a success now does NOT mean EVERY other DC character has to be a success at this moment... that is just not realistic. DC moving like Marvel is at this moment would only lead to oversaturation of the market. The genre ain't going away anytime soon. TDK was the second highest grossing movie of all time BY FAR...

 

[mclay18]

Right now, thor has just as much announced as Green Lantern and was actually behind until they hired the director. When the cast of Thor is announced and we still hear nothing about GL after a month I would start too panic.

I agree. But I think GL is further in the pipeline -- Warners loves the script, not to mention the concept art and script is available online, and now there are reports that Berlanti is scouting for shooting locations in Australia. All Warners has to do is nail down the lead actor, main crew and a release date.

From what I've heard, they're still doing rewrites on Thor as well as some previsualization stuff. If Vaughn was still on Thor we'd probably already have a cast and a filming date set.