Question for DC fans

[Chris Wallace]

I'm being serious here. Does it annoy you that WB seems to have so little faith in its own product? Why do they seem to think that only Batman & Superman, and their loosely-related spinoff properties (Steel, Catwoman, Birds Of Prey) are marketable on film? I'd be pissed if in the last 10 years, all I was seeing on the Marvel side was arachnids & mutants. Say what you will about the Ghost Rider or DD or FF flicks, at least they're taking a chance on something other than the big guns. Don't you wish they'd just stop being chicken-$#@* & go for the gusto?

 

[protocida]

Well, since we're going to get Green Lantern, Green Arrow, Wonder-Woman, The Flash, Batman, Superman and Justice League, it doesn't annoy me.

 

[Chris Wallace]

But they've been promising it for years. It's like the torture that we went through with Spider-Man. Hell-ALL the Marvel movies. False start after false start after false start.

 

[Steelsheen]

dude, the biggest reason why WB would only run Superman and Batman (and franchises spun off from it) is because those are the only titles its execs are familiar with. ironic that they have the view point of an outsider and not the owner of the publishing house that holds the treasure trove: DC Comics.

and i tell yah, i've been wishing WB would stop sitting on DC's head since they acquired it.

but the problem with WB is that it regards DC as just 1.) another revenue source and 2) a library to mine future films from. they never really understood the special treatment thats needed to produce good comic book movies which the DC guys would understand better even if they only handle the publishing side of the biz. several people have pointed this out to WB but it took TDK and Marvel Studio's success to make them realize this valuable lesson. hopefully they're gonna start moving towards the direction industry folks and fans have been telling them for years.

 

[The Major]

Well, since we're going to get Green Lantern, Green Arrow, Wonder-Woman, The Flash, Batman, Superman and Justice League, it doesn't annoy me.

None of them are greenlit.

They aren't going to make any of them be created until that happens.

 

[Webhead2006]

Yea before iron man for marvel and the dark knight for themselfs it was looking like nothing was ever going to get off the ground and get running. But with the sucesses of im/tdk and the wb/dc talks things look to be changing and i hope things will go well.

 

[Chris Wallace]

dude, the biggest reason why WB would only run Superman and Batman (and franchises spun off from it) is because those are the only titles its execs are familiar with. ironic that they have the view point of an outsider and not the owner of the publishing house that holds the treasure trove: DC Comics.

and i tell yah, i've been wishing WB would stop sitting on DC's head since they acquired it.

but the problem with WB is that it regards DC as just 1.) another revenue source and 2) a library to mine future films from. they never really understood the special treatment thats needed to produce good comic book movies which the DC guys would understand better even if they only handle the publishing side of the biz. several people have pointed this out to WB but it took TDK and Marvel Studio's success to make them realize this valuable lesson. hopefully they're gonna start moving towards the direction industry folks and fans have been telling them for years.

My point exactly.

 

[Keyser Soze]

dude, the biggest reason why WB would only run Superman and Batman (and franchises spun off from it) is because those are the only titles its execs are familiar with. ironic that they have the view point of an outsider and not the owner of the publishing house that holds the treasure trove: DC Comics.

and i tell yah, i've been wishing WB would stop sitting on DC's head since they acquired it.

but the problem with WB is that it regards DC as just 1.) another revenue source and 2) a library to mine future films from. they never really understood the special treatment thats needed to produce good comic book movies which the DC guys would understand better even if they only handle the publishing side of the biz. several people have pointed this out to WB but it took TDK and Marvel Studio's success to make them realize this valuable lesson. hopefully they're gonna start moving towards the direction industry folks and fans have been telling them for years.

Great post. I think it's telling that, in that Variety interview with the WB executive - I forget his name - he talks about how the people at Warner Bros are now entering "a learning process" regarding the world of DC Comics.

How many years now have Warner Bros owned DC? And they're only getting round to "learning" about these characters now?

 

[az824]

to answer chris' question it does annoy the heck out of me and it does piss me off how they cant seem to get us anything else not batman/superman

 

[DieSmiling]

To answer the question -- yes, of course it's annoying. How could it not be annoying to see 5000+ Marvel movies and still we've only gotten Bats, Supes, and a few terrible non-adaptations...

It's almost remarkable that with all the success of other Marvel titles it has taken THIS LONG (and the obvious uber-success of TDK) to get them off of their asses.

I will say that although nothing has been green-lit yet, I find the new WB/DC plan to be much more encouraging than anything in the past, however. Hopefully they get it right, though, and I can't wait for new DC movies.

 

[greenlantern248]

I thought Green Lantern was officialy green-lit?

 

[Webhead2006]

No dc films have been given greenlits yet. All we know right now is they want batman 3, supes reboot, and atless 2 others for the next few yrs. Now with how far in development gl/ga is they should be given the greenlit.

 

[UA-Archangel]

To be fair, it was only a couple of years ago that movie-making technology started catching up to artists and writers imagination.

 

[The Major]

To be fair, it was only a couple of years ago that movie-making technology started catching up to artists and writers imagination.

Donner's Superman and Burton's Batman aren't recent.

Star Wars pioneered movie technology when it started, too.

 

[UA-Archangel]

Donner's Superman and Burton's Batman aren't recent.

Star Wars pioneered movie technology when it started, too.

The DC suits aren't going to try and invent new technologies for unproven products. Just look at the relative bath Marvel took on the Hulk.

Superman was a guarenteed product, no matter what. However, others like Green Arrow or Huntress aren't.

 

[The Major]

Superman was a guarenteed product, no matter what.

Superman was only a guaranteed product after they made it one.

They didn't just ignore it or give it crappy adaptions.

However, others like Green Arrow or Huntress aren't.

How many movies and tv shows do they create new technology for that never appeared in any format? Youd think since they own a franchise in their comic division it would be a benefit but apparently not. I wonder if these people would have turned down Batman or Superman when it came to putting them in films or tv shows back then.

GA and Huntress aren't guaranteed product because they haven't done much to make them that in the first place.

All franchises start small. Superman was like that once, too. The difference is the suits actually know enough about the basics from being groomed over generations by products with him in it and is a long time proven because they didn't give him terrible stuff to market him with to tarnish his image. Any comic book franchise could be successful with that backing.

Ironically the techniques used in Batman films could be used for the street level characters like Huntress and GA.

WB's comic film division will never grow unless they expand beyond Batman and Superman. Treating franchises like GA and Huntress with the apropriate resources will help accomplish that.

 

[UA-Archangel]

Superman was only a guaranteed product after they made it one.

They didn't just ignore it or give it crappy adaptions.

Actually no.

Since the inception of Superman and Batman, they have always been in some media format, other than comics and they have always done well, whether it be radio, television, or movies.

That isn't to say that I wouldn't support a movie of the others, but some attention needs to be paid as to which ones will succeed.

 

[The Major]

Actually no.

Since the inception of Superman and Batman, they have always been in some media format, other than comics and they have always done well, whether it be radio, television, or movies.

Not on that scale by WB.

No comic franchise they own comes close.

 

[UA-Archangel]

Not on that scale by WB.

No comic franchise they own comes close.

No, because no other franchise has the drawing power of Supes or Bats.

I think WB would do well to see if the other franchises could do well in tv, before taking a chance on a big-event movie.

 

[Chris Wallace]

To be fair, it was only a couple of years ago that movie-making technology started catching up to artists and writers imagination.

That's really no excuse. They've had decades & all kinds of advances that would have made many of these projects a simple matter.
(This next part is probably gonna sound like some Marvel fanboy hating/bashing, but it's truly not meant as such. So please don't take it that way.)
The powers of a lot of DC's A-list characters-Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern-are not that complicated, & not that difficult to convey on film. As opposed to, say, the abilities of characters like the Human Torch, Mr. Fantastic, the Hulk, Colossus, Iceman, Venom, Mystique, even Spider-Man's organic webbing & Wolverine's claws. These powers have all been successfully within the past 10 years-and some of them more than once. And in some cases, not at very great expense. The first "X-Men" was done 9 years ago on a budget of $75 million & featured 8-count-8 central characters with varying superpowers. Among them the ability to shoot energy beams out of one's eyes & pick up & toss people with one's tongue. Hell, they were able to give us a fairly plausible "Spawn" 11 years ago. So don't tell me that the tech wasn't there. It has been there for quite some time. I don't buy that excuse at all.

 

[The Major]

No, because no other franchise has the drawing power of Supes or Bats.

It's the chicken and the egg scenario.

How does a franchise become successful? When it has a good product made about it the public can enjoy and is maintained in the public eye.

Superman and Batman have only been given that full treatment by WB from DC.

I think WB would do well to see if the other franchises could do well in tv, before taking a chance on a big-event movie.

They need to do both. With good products. It's a waste of time if they churn out garbage like Steel. All it does is lose their investment, the fans get angry and they kill a franchise for no reason.

They need faith in their own franchises like Marvel has. If they screw up a franchise they need to do what they can to restart it and learn from their mistakes.

Chris:

Agreed.

 

[Chris Wallace]

No, because no other franchise has the drawing power of Supes or Bats.

I think WB would do well to see if the other franchises could do well in tv, before taking a chance on a big-event movie.

Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Punisher, Blade-none of these had ever had tv shows-animated or otherwise-before being given a shot at Hollywood fame. And even if they were met with mixed results, I find it highly preferable to sitting on your hands for 19 years & not trying. What have they done on TV in all these years? Some Superman shows, an abomination of an attempt at a Batman spin-off/Dark Angel rip-off, and a Flash series whose pilot made it abundantly clear that they were trying to ride Batman's coattails. Flash as a Dark Knight? Get real! To say "Let's try it on TV first" is just a chicken$#*^ ploy by a company that has little to no faith in its product.

 

[DieSmiling]

That's really no excuse. They've had decades & all kinds of advances that would have made many of these projects a simple matter.
(This next part is probably gonna sound like some Marvel fanboy hating/bashing, but it's truly not meant as such. So please don't take it that way.)
The powers of a lot of DC's A-list characters-Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern-are not that complicated, & not that difficult to convey on film. As opposed to, say, the abilities of characters like the Human Torch, Mr. Fantastic, the Hulk, Colossus, Iceman, Venom, Mystique, even Spider-Man's organic webbing & Wolverine's claws. These powers have all been successfully within the past 10 years-and some of them more than once. And in some cases, not at very great expense. The first "X-Men" was done 9 years ago on a budget of $75 million & featured 8-count-8 central characters with varying superpowers. Among them the ability to shoot energy beams out of one's eyes & pick up & toss people with one's tongue. Hell, they were able to give us a fairly plausible "Spawn" 11 years ago. So don't tell me that the tech wasn't there. It has been there for quite some time. I don't buy that excuse at all.

Yeah, but the action in "X-Men" is pretty lame compared with what we can get today.

And the assertion that Marvel characters are more expensive/visually impressive/hard to produce is one of the more absurd things I've heard someone try to argue.

 

[04nbod]

Yeah, but the action in "X-Men" is pretty lame compared with what we can get today.

And the assertion that Marvel characters are more expensive/visually impressive/hard to produce is one of the more absurd things I've heard someone try to argue.

not lame, smaller. It had around an $80 million budget IIRC. Superman returns had twice that and didn't churn out a better movie. The first X Men is also much truer to the comics atmosphere and characters than the other two

 

[DieSmiling]

not lame, smaller. It had around an $80 million budget IIRC. Superman returns had twice that and didn't churn out a better movie. The first X Men is also much truer to the comics atmosphere and characters than the other two

Oh, I love X-Men, it's one of the better comic book movies out there. I'm just saying the action/effects in that movie pale in comparison to the stuff they're doing today...

It's not an insult, it came out in 2000 with a smaller budget (it paved the way for the stuff today)...