Joss Whedon Explains Why DC Heroes Lack Movie Appeal & How He’d Do A Batman Film

[Johnny Drama]

As much as I love Whedon,
his idea for Batman is crap. Plain and simple.
His Wonder Woman would have been okay, but unless it's X-Men, Buffy/Angel or Serenity/Firefly, Whedon should stay away from established properties, he is just going to end up pissing someone off.

 

[Heretic]

Believe me folks, Joss Whedon knows what makes a bankable movie and what doesn't! having never made a profitable film himself, he should have a firm grip on it.

 

[The Guard]

He's completely wrong. On many levels. I always find it sad that people even care what Joss Whedon has to say about anything these days.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I've only really liked the first two seasons of Buffy. Firefly was okay and the movie was okay but Angel quickly turned to crap IMHO and DollHouse looks incredibly lame.

I'm not a fan nor a basher of Joss but I do feel that his work is surpremely overrated and I was one of the few not looking forward to his WonderWoman movie, especially if he was delusional enough to believe that the mediocre Dushku could actually carry the flick.

It does kinda seem like sourgrapes to me and thats too bad. I'm definitely not some blind DC defender. I love their characters but the only truely good movies that they have made about their characters in my opinion are Batman Begins and TDK. I hope to add GL to that very short list in 2010.

 

[Sawyer]

I've only really liked the first two seasons of Buffy. Firefly was okay and the movie was okay but Angel quickly turned to crap IMHO and DollHouse looks incredibly lame.

I'm not a fan nor a basher of Joss but I do feel that his work is surpremely overrated and I was one of the few not looking forward to his WonderWoman movie, especially if he was delusional enough to believe that the mediocre Dushku could actually carry the flick.

It does kinda seem like sourgrapes to me and thats too bad. I'm definitely not some blind DC defender. I love their characters but the only truely good movies that they have made about their characters in my opinion are Batman Begins and TDK. I hope to add GL to that very short list in 2010.

Dont make that mistake again.

 

[Lobo]

As much as I love Whedon,
his idea for Batman is crap. Plain and simple.
His Wonder Woman would have been okay, but unless it's X-Men, Buffy/Angel or Serenity/Firefly, Whedon should stay away from established properties, he is just going to end up pissing someone off.

As a big WW fan, and abig joss fan, I can say, no his WW would have sucked.

 

[Lobo]

I've only really liked the first two seasons of Buffy. Firefly was okay and the movie was okay but Angel quickly turned to crap IMHO and DollHouse looks incredibly lame.

I'm not a fan nor a basher of Joss but I do feel that his work is surpremely overrated and I was one of the few not looking forward to his WonderWoman movie, especially if he was delusional enough to believe that the mediocre Dushku could actually carry the flick.

It does kinda seem like sourgrapes to me and thats too bad. I'm definitely not some blind DC defender. I love their characters but the only truely good movies that they have made about their characters in my opinion are Batman Begins and TDK. I hope to add GL to that very short list in 2010.

His choice was reportedly Cobie Smulders. He may have said it tongue in cheek, but he never said anything seriously about wanting Dushku to be WW

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Dont make that mistake again.

It's called an opinion fella.

 

[Steelsheen]

Whedon is a good writer, very creative fellow and is particularly talented in creating strong women characters.

having said that, Whedon does not understand the concept of DC superheroes. he is a Marvel boy through and through, and what he views are DC's weaknesses (and therefore Marvel's strengths) is what makes him not understand what DC is all about. that is the primary reason why he was let go from WW. at the core his view of WW is vastly different from what WB-- and DC-- knows WW to be. its as simple as that.

he says that Marvel characters are more relevant because they show their superheroes as having weaknesses and pain, that people relate to them better because they can see themselves in their heroes. in some sense that is true. however what Marvel fans fail to realize is that DC heroes isnt just about "being just like the regular folks", its more about being an ideal, being an example to many so that we strive to better ourselves and not just wallow in our own flaws. the DC superheroes of late doesnt distance themselves from real life problems as what detractors claim it does, but rather serve as a mirror so that we (the readers) see what is wrong with the world and find a way to change it, oftentimes this change is done by the DC superheroes themselves and more often than not they dont even use their own superpowers.

i once had a lengthy discussion with a Marvel fan after which we realized that Marvel stories tackle and solve problems after a long drama, using emotions as the primary tool. with DC, theres a bit of drama, however most of the solution is done through logical and/or conscientious thinking and not too much emotion. thats the basic difference between the two franchise, and that is why some would prefer Marvel while others prefer DC.

 

[Papa Burgundy]

god im sick of hearing about what joss whedon or kevin smith thinks...everytime they say anything it has to be heard, and it has to be right. screw them.

 

[Johnny Drama]

god im sick of hearing about what joss whedon or kevin smith thinks...everytime they say anything it has to be heard, and it has to be right. Screw them.

qft

 

[The Major]

Believe me folks, Joss Whedon knows what makes a bankable movie and what doesn't! having never made a profitable film himself, he should have a firm grip on it.

You're underestimating Whedon IMO. Its true he isn't in Cameron's league with big budget movies but his tv shows are incredibly successful and Serenity did very well. Just not well enough for sequels. It was far from a bomb at the box office.

 

[Crook]

Whedon's success is with a very narrow demographic. I'm not sure you can in any way equate that as to being "incredibly successful" within the big picture. He's a niche director/writer. Until he can show he's beyond that, that's exactly what he is.

 

[The Major]

Whedon's success is with a very narrow demographic.

A demographic which has made him very rich IIRC.

I'm not sure you can in any way equate that as to being "incredibly successful" within the big picture.

Whedon may not be a financial heavyweight in Hollywood but he doesn't need to be to still be very successful.

He's a niche director/writer. Until he can show he's beyond that, that's exactly what he is.

True.

 

[The Batman]

Latino Review has the best article based on Joss's comments:

http://www.latinoreview.com/news/jo...aving-a-hard-time-with-its-dc-properties-6265

" I don't agree with Joss' opinion on why DC heroes are struggling to get to the big screen. I don't think it has anything to do with connecting to audiences because I somehow managed to connect just fine with Lois Lane and Clark Kent back in the day when Reeve was flying around on the big screen."

"I mean, if a movie sucks, no audience will connect with it regardless of the hero. Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Spider-Man 3, all are Marvel heroes rooted in humanity, yet all were enormous piece of **** movies."

That's another thing...people like joss need to realize that the GA dosent give a damn if heroes have the same problems as them....the James Bomd films do just fine, and he is VERY much an ideal in many respects....

 

[Sawyer]

It's called an opinion fella.

Then dont make that opinion again.

 

[BroadwayBenny]

...and Serenity did very well. Just not well enough for sequels. It was far from a bomb at the box office.

Serenity cost $39 million...it's WORLDWIDE gross at the box office was just shy of breaking even. I wouldn't call that doing very well. Sure, the dvd sales have probably pushed it up just over cost, but the film is still considered to have done poorly by theatrical standards.

 

[Lex Luthor]

Whedon told MTV of his big-screen Batman story. “He didn’t go to Tibet and meet cool people … In my version, there was actually a new [villain], it wasn’t one of the classics — which is probably why they didn’t use it.”

Apparently Whedon has something of an affinity for creating new villains so I suppose if you dont succeed, just try again. As if I am not mistaken, he also wanted to write in a new villain for his proposed WW film rather than simply use a already existing villain in Wonder Woman rogue's gallery.

 

[Octoberist]

i do get angry when the main villain is made up just for the movie. I don't mind if the character is minor (like Gambol in Dark Knight) but why risk with someone new when I'm sure someone in the comics can do?

 

[baerrtt]

I respect Whedon but looking at his body of work I'm not surprised at his belief that DC's pantheon is a lot less relatable than Marvel's as everything from BUFFY to SERENITY draws from the Marvel template of flawed (and in some cases unheroic) people being forced to take moral responsibility.

And yet DC's works since the late 1970s/1980s (particularly the seminal graphic novels THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS and WATCHMEN) have played on the more intelligent and darker perspective that has allowed the better movies based on their properties (from Donner's Superman to Nolan's Batman) stand out from the Marvel films.

Basically putting a 'godly' or 'perfect' character or characters in a scenario where they could still fail and their 'ideal' has moral consequences is more emotionally affecting, to me, than ordinary (or relatively ordinary like Tony Stark) ****-ups being thrust with abilities and into a world they can't cope with at the best of times.

It is that template that informed not just Batman and Superman's modern incarnations but stretches to Gaiman's SANDMAN and Moore's SWAMP THING all the way back to a regular superhero title like STARMAN.

'Perfect' doesn't mean boring or unchallenging as I feel the best DC stories/movies/tv shows show that you can get better drama and unpredictability out of the impossible so to speak. It just takes creativity so I'm dissapointed that Whedon came to WONDER WOMAN having no idea how to rely on that form of DC storytelling.

 

[LexCorp]

Now I love Joss and he does have a good point about how most DC characters translate badly to screen.

He does say Batman is an exception to that rule, but then goes on to say how he would have done it differently in a tone that suggests how he would have also done it better. A little bitter that they did not pick his version me thinks.

Hmmmmm........

 

[The Batman]

Now I love Joss and he does have a good point about how most DC characters translate badly to screen.

He does say Batman is an exception to that rule, but then goes on to say how he would have done it differently in a tone that suggests how he would have also done it better. A little bitter that they did not pick his version me thinks.

Hmmmmm........

How does he have a good point when we...I dunno...havent actually seen other DC characters translate onscreen? When we've already seen a Superman movie with humanity to it?

 

[Evil Twin]

Frankly, the more Whedon talks the more I believe that a Wonder Woman film by him would have been a disaster. He seriously does believe that WW is completely unrelatable and everything I've read about his take would have been starting from that point and Steve Trevor teaching her how to be relatable and human. Completely missing the point, IMO.

It really does seem like Whedon has never looked at a DC book, other than Batman, from more recent than the 60s.

 

[rainingcrow]

whedon Is skilled as a creator, and he is wonderfully creative. I love his style and take on things, but honestly he is left best to his own creations rather than trying to work his sensibilities into adaptations or pre existent characters worlds or stories.

with one exception... his style is realllllllly realllllly suited for young group teams... something like "teen titans" or "generation x", would be quite suitable for him............. as a series, not a movie

 

[LexCorp]

How does he have a good point when we...I dunno...havent actually seen other DC characters translate onscreen? When we've already seen a Superman movie with humanity to it?

On the 2 recent films from DC that I have seen - the Batman franchise out weighs the Superman franchise. I feel this is the case because Superman Returns lacked the punch (humanity if we are calling it that) that Batman had. So to me it is 1 win 1 loss. Fence sitting should really be my stance at this point until another DC movie comes out.

Of course in the past the Reeves Superman movies in my opinion out did the original Batman movies. So things for me in the movie world have shifted a bit.