Is DCE accomplishing anything?

I still shake my head at those of you who don't get it. Marvel has only made 3 films, every other Marvel property that's appeared on screen has been produced by someone else who acquired the licence for use of the characters from Marvel. Marvel has sweet f-all to do with the likes of X-Men, Spider-Man etc, they've made IM1 & 2 and TIH. If you guys are gonna start comparing studios at least get your facts right.

....how come its not ok to judge marvel on the spider-man and x-men films (which STILL had guys like Kevin Feige and Avi Arad who acted as representatives of marvel), but fanboys like to judge DC based on films they had NO say in?

This is why this argument is juvenile. Just fanboys looking to take a piss on DC cause they dont care about a silly film fued with Marvel.
 
There's alot of sound arguments here for why WB/DC isn't more aggressive with the DC universe. Sure, they haven't needed to be with WBs other film properties, makes perfect sense. What really annoys me is DCEs approach. When first forming they have said almost form DAY ONE that there would be this BIG announcement about there slate of projects. Geoff Johns most recently spoke of this at the scream awards stating it was coming soon! So where the hell is this so called announcement. I say again, if your not announcing anything FINE, just don't tell you still are. Pretty simple.
This could still go DCEs way with the release of GL. However, as of TODAY the buzz sucks for GL imo. Hopefully this changes in a major way with the 2nd trailer. I myself didn't see why there was so many complaints about the first one. I thought it looked great. Bottom line I want more DC heroes on the big screen like Flash and especially Aquaman to finally receive his due.
 
....how come its not ok to judge marvel on the spider-man and x-men films (which STILL had guys like Kevin Feige and Avi Arad who acted as representatives of marvel), but fanboys like to judge DC based on films they had NO say in?

This is why this argument is juvenile. Just fanboys looking to take a piss on DC cause they dont care about a silly film fued with Marvel.

The ill informed judge DC because they don't realize that WB are the ones running the show. I'm actually sick to death of people bagging both companies for films they had nothing to do with simply because the characters belong to one or the other. This DC v Marvel movie crap is pure nonsense because the debate always spirals away from the facts of the matter. Facts people - DC Comics has no film division and their arse is owned by WB, Marvel does have a film division but their arse is owned by Disney and have only made 3 movies, DC don't have the luxury of creating their own movies, Marvel do (for now anyway). End of story.
 
This.

GL is the first film under the DCE banner. You can say "Superman and Batman were gonna happen regardless", but you really cant say that about GL, and no one knows either way whether or not YJ wouldve been made without DCE.

The producers have at least said that they wouldn't have had access to some of the characters without DCE.
 
The ill informed judge DC because they don't realize that WB are the ones running the show. I'm actually sick to death of people bagging both companies for films they had nothing to do with simply because the characters belong to one or the other. This DC v Marvel movie crap is pure nonsense because the debate always spirals away from the facts of the matter. Facts people - DC Comics has no film division and their arse is owned by WB, Marvel does have a film division but their arse is owned by Disney and have only made 3 movies, DC don't have the luxury of creating their own movies, Marvel do (for now anyway). End of story.

/Thread
 
Huh? Marvel isn't selling rights, it's claiming rights back. The Punisher is back in their hands, for example. With the FF and Daredevil soon to follow I'd imagine.

With the power of Disney behind it, Marvel will never go bankrupt again.

Yeah, right now Marvel is just like DC, as part of a big conglomerate instead of a company that depends on its own earning for survival. And like it or not, Disney is a very successful corporation and owns other companies like ESPN, ABC, Pixar, and a slew of theme parks and movie studios. Marvel will be fine.
 
This.

GL is the first film under the DCE banner. You can say "Superman and Batman were gonna happen regardless", but you really cant say that about GL, and no one knows either way whether or not YJ wouldve been made without DCE.

This is kinda old, but...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/heat-vision/secret-origin-how-red-escaped-19074

Secret Origin: How 'Red' escaped Warner Bros. and ended up at Summit

October 13 9:09 PM 10/13/2010 by Borys Kit

If Summit’s new action movie, starring seasoned performers Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, Helen Mirren and John Malkovich, scores with audiences this weekend, Warners likely will be seeing “RED.”

That’s because the studio repeatedly passed on the project, which was developed from a DC Comics title.

Tracking suggests that “RED” will post a solid opening — in the low- to mid-$20 million range. The movie had its first test screening prior to Comic-Con, which it passed with flying colors.

And after the success of “The Expendables,” which has grossed $248 million worldwide, an action movie with a cast of older performers doesn’t look like quite as much as a long shot.

But even before its Friday opening, “RED” carries with it a singular distinction: It is the first movie based on a DC Comics title that was not made by DC sister company Warners. And now that Warners has made moves to envelop DC and exploit the film potential of DC’s library more aggressively by creating DC Entertainment, it’s likely to be the last one as well.

What makes it even more interesting is that at almost every stage of development, Summit and the producers invited Warners to get involved.
“RED” began life as a comic from writer Warren Ellis and artist Cully Hamner that was published in late 2003 by DC’s Wildstorm imprint, which folded last week. The comic, which was creator-owned, piqued the interest of Gregory Noveck, who had just been appointed by then-DC president Paul Levitz to act as DC’s man in Hollywood. (Noveck left the company two months ago.)

While working on trying to shepherd other titles — mainly from the publisher’s superhero line — to the screen, Noveck began talking to Warners’ on-the-lot producers and writers, trying to generate interest in “RED.” Some execs liked the three-issue comic, which told of a retired CIA agent who gets marked for termination, but they didn’t exactly see a big movie in it.


So Warners passed.

It was then that Ellis and Hamner exercised their right to extricate the property. That, of course, was easier said than done. Part of the process involved having all of Warner’s divisions, including TV, review the property’s potential before it could be given its get-out-of-jail card. It took years, but in 2008, thanks to Noveck’s persistence, “RED” was given the key to drive the project off the lot.

Mark Vahradian at Di Bonaventura Prods. had been aware of the comic and, along with the company’s David Ready, brought the project into the shingle. They reached out to writers Erich and Jon Hoeber, with whom Noveck had worked on a TV pilot that went nowhere at Silver Pictures, and began expanding the tale into one that encompassed the ideas of pitting older characters, considered past their prime, against younger ones. They introduced a colorful supporting cast, giving the project a more action-oriented “Ocean’s Eleven” feel.

The writers and producers spit-shined the heck out of a pitch and took it out around town — DreamWorks, Paramount, Sony, Universal and Warners were all pitched — in May and June 2008.
Warners passed again.

The one company that made an offer was Summit, at that time an up-and-coming production company that was still five months away from releasing “Twilight.” Summit was particularly interested in having DC’s participation in order to use its logo and brand to help promote the movie.
At Summit, “RED” developed more momentum: The script came in, and the studio liked it. In spring 2009, Willis became attached, and director Robert Schwentke came aboard soon after.

At almost every step along the way, Summit showed the project to Warners, hoping that the bigger studio might come in as a partner because Summit was looking to mitigate financial risk. “RED” ultimately cost $58 million to produce (a number that figures in tax incentives), and it was shaping up as Summit’s most expensive movie to date.

But even when the movie had assembled more of its cast, including Freeman, Warners still passed. Execs at the Burbank studio simply felt that “RED” was “too small” to serve as a Warner Bros. movie. One insider said Warners was more interested in the bigger DC properties, especially when “The Dark Knight” rang up a billion dollars worldwide; anything that didn’t measure up to that potential was considered low priority.

According to insiders, the failed “Jonah Hex” movie, which came on the heels of tepid comic adaptation “The Losers,” will be the last one made with one of the lesser-known, nonsuperpowered characters in the DC library for a long time.

Warners’ focus now is making sure “Green Lantern” launches a franchise and that “Flash” is queued up, eventually paving the way for an all-star “Justice League” movie in the same way Marvel has teed up its “Avengers” movie.

But if Summit enjoys success with “RED,” Warners still could have second thoughts.

“They will say they don’t care” about the movie, said one exec, “but the reality is if this movie works, you will never see a DC title go out the door again.”

I think there's another article somewhere about how Jonah Hex got all screwed up somewhere.
 
Last edited:
So what happens if Green Lantern tanks? It's not exactly riding a ton of hot buzz right now.
 
No superhero film this year is riding any buzz, in fact you'd hardly know there were 4 superhero flicks coming out this yer, there's only one superhero flick that's generating any buzz and it hasn't even started filming yet.
 
Yeah that's not a good thing except for Nolan Batman 3.

Thing is Marvel has sort of established its brand in theatres as of late. Spider-man, X-men, and Iron Man are all billion dollar movie franchises.
 
The geek in me LOVES what Marvel is doing with the shared universe. Having said that it doesn't mean its not a risk and gamble. It may fail, it may be EPIC.

I love the balls to try it though.


DC is as iconic as it gets at the top, but doesn't quite have as much depth as Marvel when it comes to the "superhero" genre imo.

Basically, Superman and Batman are two of the more iconic characters ever. They have a recognizable duo of heroes like Flash and Wonder Woman. After that it gets kind of murky at who could carry a movie.

Marvel has been more prolific in the creation of marketable characters imo. There are more feasible movies to be made on the Marvel side to me. I'm NOT saying that DC has very few interesting characters, just few that I think could carry a movie. I think DC has been kicking Marvel's arse in the writing dept during Quesada's reign and have had some incredible books. Comic geeks have different tastes in characters than the GA though.

I am sure that DC has not abandoned the JLA plans just yet, merely delayed them. Theres to much money potential. They will be watching The Avengers project play out and taking notes. Less risk for WB the way they are doing things. They are taking the safe route. Only time will tell if it was smart or not.

I honestly think a Batman/Superman crossover would be a good first step for them, and a BIG money maker potentially.
 
Marvel may be way ahead of DC on live action film, but its the other way around on tv shows and animated works. Okay the WW pilot seems destined to flop but other than that you've seen way more DC properties as successful tv series than Marvel. That being said, with the foundation of DCE you'd think expanding the presence of the DC characters in the movies should be a top priority. Its where DC needs the most work.

On another note, I say I'm looking forward to the GL flick this summer to friends and family and they think I'm talking about Green Hornet. If I mention the Flash they think its Flash Gordon. That would change more likely if GL and Flash were successful movies.
 
Yeah that's not a good thing except for Nolan Batman 3.

Thing is Marvel has sort of established its brand in theatres as of late. Spider-man, X-men, and Iron Man are all billion dollar movie franchises.

That's got nothing to do with the Marvel brand. Most people couldn't tell you which character belongs to which brand, they simply don't care.
 
And it might not help that it seems like so many "big" films are coming out week after week, comic-related or not.
 
The ill informed judge DC because they don't realize that WB are the ones running the show. I'm actually sick to death of people bagging both companies for films they had nothing to do with simply because the characters belong to one or the other. This DC v Marvel movie crap is pure nonsense because the debate always spirals away from the facts of the matter. Facts people - DC Comics has no film division and their arse is owned by WB, Marvel does have a film division but their arse is owned by Disney and have only made 3 movies, DC don't have the luxury of creating their own movies, Marvel do (for now anyway). End of story.

This.

Wonder Woman is a great example. We're not getting an WW movie not because DCE didn't want to make one, but because the President of WB Pictures Jeff Robinov explicitly declared in '07 that there will be no female-centric action movies (and despite some public WB spin, he's apparently still hewing to that).

http://www.firstshowing.net/2007/warner-brothers-president-says-no-more-female-lead-characters/

And we won't get a WW movie until Robinov is dead, fired, resigns, or something radical changes his view that a woman can carry an action movie. So DCE did the next best thing and went to TV (whether you care for their approach with David Kelley is a debate for another thread).

It also doesn't help that WB's internal structure is screwed up, with most entertainment divisions having veto power over the use of characters by other entertainment divisions. That's why Batman and Wonder Woman never appeared on Smallville. The fans were begging for it and the ratings would have really popped had it happened, but the movie division never allowed it for fear that somehow an appearance by either character would have hurt their movie franchises (which never developed anyway for WW). It was beyond stupid. :wall:

So this stuff isn't all in DCE's hands. They have corporate masters who have handcuffed them in a lot of ways.
 
That's got nothing to do with the Marvel brand. Most people couldn't tell you which character belongs to which brand, they simply don't care.

You're probably right that most people don't care. But I also think most people realize Spider-Man and Batman or Superman won't be teaming up anytime soon. They know they are not in the same company.
 
You're probably right that most people don't care. But I also think most people realize Spider-Man and Batman or Superman won't be teaming up anytime soon. They know they are not in the same company.

Even if they were from the same company, I don't think much of the general audience would care if they teamed up or not.
 
That's got nothing to do with the Marvel brand. Most people couldn't tell you which character belongs to which brand, they simply don't care.
DC/Time Warner have been unable to successfully revive Superman as a movie franchise for over two decades. All they've been able to do that was a true success was Batman. Marvel comics characters have produced several billion dollar franchises over the last decade.
 
Even if they were from the same company, I don't think much of the general audience would care if they teamed up or not.

You're missing my point. I was saying that i think general audiences know that big names like Spider-Man and Batman are from two different companies and are not in the same comic book world.
 
Wonder Woman is a great example. We're not getting an WW movie not because DCE didn't want to make one, but because the President of WB Pictures Jeff Robinov explicitly declared in '07 that there will be no female-centric action movies (and despite some public WB spin, he's apparently still hewing to that).

And we won't get a WW movie until Robinov is dead, fired, resigns, or something radical changes his view that a woman can carry an action movie. So DCE did the next best thing and went to TV (whether you care for their approach with David Kelley is a debate for another thread).

Right. Definitely comes down to Robinov. Robinov seems to love the dark Batman most of all. There were reports that he didn't even like Superman that much. And as for Wonder Woman, Deadline went into more detail in this 2007 article:

5) he's nixed Wonder Woman as a stand-alone film, downgrading her to just one of four superhero characters in the proposed Justice League pic, and, 6) Robinov will only make Wonder Woman as a spin-off of Justice League, about four superheroes including Wonder Woman. But his proviso is that JL (no doubt its proper name Justice League Of America would be too jingoistic for the foreign market) would have to do really, really boffo to justify having a female star-driven pic.

http://www.deadline.com/2007/10/the-reality-behind-jeff-robinovs-denial/
 
Robinov wanted DC movies to be dark, he even had a list that was supposed to to well just because He thought that anything Dark will get success.

After BB, SR, Watchmen, TDK, Jonah Hex, Losers, RED there was some movement for darker movie projects like Lobo, Bizarro Superman and Green Arrow at the expense of so called lighter movies like Flash, WW, Superman.

WW had to face an additional obstacle because it was a female action oriented movie, which according to Robinov was a huge risk.

Robinov should have looked at some of the movies that got made by WB, which bombed but were considered to become sure Hits by the Studios, these movie were in my opinion more of failure.

Poseidon, Watchmen, Speed Racer (All big budget movies.)
 
Robinov wanted DC movies to be dark, he even had a list that was supposed to to well just because He thought that anything Dark will get success...WW had to face an additional obstacle because it was a female action oriented movie, which according to Robinov was a huge risk.

And what's truly ironic is that lots of aspects of WW's mythos would work very well in a movie that's "gritty" realistic and dark on par with Nolan's Batman movies. An opening sequence where the Amazons are getting wiped out in a big battle could be easily as dark as anything Nolan has put on the screen--just shoot it "Gladiator" style and go from there.

This has been a terrible missed opportunity for WB/DCE to put a real spectacle movie on the screen that could make even Robinov happy. The idea that a WW movie somehow has to be light and frothy shows that a lot of people--Robinov included--just lack the imagination to look past the 70's series; and they certainly aren't familiar with the direction that WW has taken in the comics since the series was on the air.
 
Last edited:
You're missing my point. I was saying that i think general audiences know that big names like Spider-Man and Batman are from two different companies and are not in the same comic book world.

I really doubt that they know or even care to know. Just some comics characters on the big screen. It's like how the audience doesn't care which studio puts out which film. And with any other film, very few people think if it's in the same universe as another or not.
 
DC/Time Warner have been unable to successfully revive Superman as a movie franchise for over two decades. All they've been able to do that was a true success was Batman. Marvel comics characters have produced several billion dollar franchises over the last decade.

Yeah but no-ones cares which company created which characters.
You're missing my point. I was saying that i think general audiences know that big names like Spider-Man and Batman are from two different companies and are not in the same comic book world.

I guarantee you most people have no idea nor do they care.
 
Another one of these?

I don't get the "buzz" arguments. The Dark Knight Rises is the only superhero movie that actually has "buzz." The rest, Thor, Green Lantern, Cap, and X-Men will all depend on marketing closer to release. Besides fanboys I don't think anyone sees a poster months in advance and says "Clear my schedule 8 months from now!"

The Marvel Fans who talk about Green Lantern's lack of a new trailer as a flaw in Green Lantern's marketing baffle me as well. Green Lantern had a trailer 7 months before the release. Captain America comes out in 4 months and we've only had a 30-second TV spot. Plus, we have a definitive date for the second Green Lantern trailer and Captain America's keeps getting pushed back. I'm looking forward to both movies and don't care what company makes what, as long as the movie is good, but that criticism is a bit hypocritical.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"