What is DC Entertainment doing? What is their plan?

[Red Mask]

Right. Why do we fail, Master Bruce? It's so SUPERMAN can catch us.

 

[batman strikes]

Man, after seeing the trailer for The Avengers makes me disappointed were not going to see the Justice League movie the way it needs to be made. I also fear the public wouldn't go crazy over it like they will with the Avengers because of characters like the Green Lantern, which had a poor movie and Aquaman who isn't that well liked with the non comic fans. Only Batman and Superman would be the big draw for the audiences unless the new Superman movie isn't as good as were hoping. Don't get me wrong I love DC but even I have to admit that Marvel has beaten them.

 

[Micromind]

GL turned out to be a disappointment, I think that WB should leave GL franchise for the time being and concentrate on Flash and Wonder Woman properties, Flash movie would be less expensive to make than a WW movie, so start with Flash.

Later on we can have a JL movie or some team up movies.

And keep making the Vertigo / DC movies.

 

[batman strikes]

I definately agree that they should concentrate on The Flash and Wonder Woman and maybe even Green Arrow. I just hope they don't make the same mistakes as Green Lantern and I still don't understand how they could mess that up. They had great material to work with and they just basically made a cliff notes version of these characters.

 

[KalMart]

I don't think it's ultimately about superhero fans getting what they 'deserve', so much as it is about the studio making as much money as they can. That's really the only motivation for putting these things out. So it's only natural that they may want to rethink things after the debacle that was GL...a la...are superheroes really the answer? Granted, they may still need to try a few more to find out. But even if they only put out a few Batman and Superman movies...and they end up being top grossers for the year, it could be an example of 'less is more' in that area.

With The Hobbit on the horizon, and perhaps another novel series adaptation...WB may not need as many comic-movies as Marvel if they're still the revenue leader in terms of major studios, while very possibly saving hundreds of millions that they may have sunk in a Flash or Plastic Man movie. They could re-allocate the resources and ambition into other non-comic movies, and possibly insulate themselves a little better from a trail-off in popularity of the comic-movie genre.

I'm not saying that WB should give up on comic-movies outside of Batman altogether. But I think they should broaden their palette more and not put so many eggs in one basket, so to speak. Let the superhero projects be more creatively driven by filmmakers who want to make those movies, rather than the alleged need to get their catalogue out there to keep up with Marvel. You may get fewer comic movies, but I think they'll end up being better movies in and of themselves, and will in turn make better money. Then fill out the rest of your big-movie roster with the Hobbits and original film projects. In that respect, DCE could concentrate on targeting the core comic fans with video games and animation. It may not ease DC fan jealousy over Marvel's greater volume of comic-movies, but again, it's not really just about the comic-fans to begin with. They may not have as many superhero movies, but if they have a broader variety of popular movies from different genres, it may end up being a much brighter (and more lucrative) feather in their cap.

 

[Octoberist]

That's why f you noticed WB is busy with the 300 prequel, Akira, the numerous Legendary projects, etc.

Next year will be WB's year with Batman, Superman, and Hobbit.

So pretty much, they on plan b while they can figure out their DC projects.

 

[Donut]

If the only DC Comics Movie WB ends up releasing on a regular basics is Batman after 2012 then eventually Batman will fall once people get tired of nothing but Batman from them & then what WB ? Then what ?

 

[Airwings]

If the only DC Comics Movie WB ends up releasing on a regular basics is Batman after 2012 then eventually Batman will fall once people get tired of nothing but Batman from them & then what WB ? Then what ?

Then they will make a bunch of Superman films until it fails to make money, and go back to Batman again.
Heaven forbid Warner Bros trying anything else, like Flash, Wonder Woman or Aquaman. None of them can be a surprise hit like the second-rate comic book hero Iron Man, it's impossible. (in case you don't understand irony).

 

[Karelia]

The Flash would be nice to see. Just don't give it a ridiculous budget like GL and it should be fine. Wonder Woman would be great to see. If they want to make a cheap/low budget DC film, Green Arrow could work for that.

 

[KalMart]

If the only DC Comics Movie WB ends up releasing on a regular basics is Batman after 2012 then eventually Batman will fall once people get tired of nothing but Batman from them & then what WB ? Then what ?

People aren't only watching comic-movies. They could develop another Narnia or another novel series adaptation, or something completely ground-up as a film...that's what.

 

[psylockolussus]

Warner Brothers is a good studio but they suck at handling the DC films.

I just wanna see a Wonder Woman / Flash / Aquaman and a Justice League movie.

 

[SoulManX]

Marvel Comics has a bunch of successful superhero films: Spider-Man, X-Men, Iron Man, Thor
And the ones not that successful: Blade, Ghost Rider, Punisher, Daredevil, Elektra.
Hulk and Fantastic 4 are in-between these groups
If we look at these films, we can see that there have been made films out of many Marvel heroes, some of the most well-known ones in their comic library. Only Captain America is left, but his film will open just soon.

Then we look at DC Comic's library of superheroes: Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, The Flash, Green Lantern, Aquaman, Green Arrow, Hawkman, Plastic Man etc
Not many of them have actually been done live action (not counting TV shows)
I think it's stupid to suggest that Warner Bros should just lay their hands off these characters and do other DC work. Superhero fans around the world deserve to see that also WW and the rest get blockbuster treatments. It should not be only exclusive for Marvel to get things done, the superhero film genre should not be monopoly.

Green Lantern did not turn out to be the success the character deserved. But we have to swallow our pride and keep going, never losing hope. As I just said, not every Marvel character was a success either. With the failure of GL, there can be a success for other heroes. Nobody knows which one. Carter Hall and Oliver Queen could become the biggest, or just go the same way as Hal Jordan. But for every flop, there will also be at least one success. Trust me.
If we never try, we will never know. Even a commercial failure, is still an adaption. As long as there are chances for becoming a popular film, we have to make it. The film can become a flop, but it's a risk we all must take.

Some words of wisdom: "Better listen to the string that broke than never tighten a bow"

Blade was successful

 

[Red Mask]

Blade was successful

Agreed, and a milestone too.

 

[The Morningstar]

To be fair Blade's success had nothing to do with it being a comic book movie. It was a movie featuring Wesley Snipes as a bad ass vampire hunter. It didn't even have the Marvel logo at the start of the film.

 

[SoulManX]

To be fair Blade's success had nothing to do with it being a comic book movie. It was a movie featuring Wesley Snipes as a bad ass vampire hunter. It didn't even have the Marvel logo at the start of the film.

It got more sequels than GL

 

[Donut]

To be fair Blade's success had nothing to do with it being a comic book movie. It was a movie featuring Wesley Snipes as a bad ass vampire hunter. It didn't even have the Marvel logo at the start of the film.

I remember seeing the trailer in theaters for the first one & was amazed

 

[amazingfantasy15]

During the Emerald City Comic Convention in Seattle WA, I had the opportunity to ask Dan Jurgens a simple question: How are they going to incorporate other characters into the mainstream after GL and he said: "DC will be doing things different than Marvel."

That did not aliviate one bit of doubtfulness about how things where going to turn after GL. There is a huge DC fanbase out there, most of them will be for characters that pop culture has ridiculed and more than likely we will never see on screen. Marvel has a fanbase as huge as DC, the last 4 years they've been hitting some higher, some lower in theaters first on their on and now with Disney.

There's nothing to do with WB/DC, the reason why the superhero movies suck is simple, "too many chiefs not enough indians." The director is the captain of the ship, not the producer, nor executive producer, nor the guy incharge of WB.

If GL was going to be the first character done to compete with Marvel, then they could have done it during fall, winter or even spring. WB knew that Thor and Cap where about 3 months apart, like they did with the Hulk and Iron Man 2 it was stupid of them to push the character during the summer. Whomever was incharge of advertising GL should be FIRED. Waiting three months to start showing a character that has been in comics for almost 70 years to the mainstream should've been pushed at least a year or 2 earlier than expected.

In order to suceedd you learn from your past mistakes and move foward. Find the right director, the right script, have your adviser (comic book advisers) and do the best fooking movie that you can without bastardizing it. Give the characters rights to another company that is willing to do them before you (WB/DC) butcher someone's creation into pieces.

This is a pretty stupid paragraph. The release date and advertising for Green Lantern were both fine. The Dark Knight came out after Iron Man and Hulk and kicked ass, so multiple comic movies makes no difference. Green Lantern is a summer movie, it was a hopeful tentpole for WB. The advertising was followed the tried and true method for summer movies as well, you would never promote a movie for a year unless it's part of an already established franchise. The reason Green Lantern failed is simple, the movie sucked, the story focused to much on the Earth relationships and not nearly enough on the Green Lantern relationships. The movie should have been about Hal and Sinestro's relationship moving from mentor/mentee to friendship.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Whats this sily idea about Flash being a cheap character to do? It's going to take alot of speicial effects to make a Flash movie and like most big budget films I can't see it's budget being much under 140mil at the very least.

 

[jmc]

There's really no such thing as a cheap superhero film.

 

[Godzilla2014]

There's really no such thing as a cheap superhero film.

Except for maybe Batman, Green Arrow or the like. Then again, those could just be relative to other superhero franchises.

 

[KalMart]

There's really no such thing as a cheap superhero film.

There's really no such thing as a cheap film, period.

 

[merced]

There's really no such thing as a cheap film, period.

Well yes and no. Wedding Crashers was a "cheap" film and the Devil's Prada too. The latter cleaned SR's clock in the day.

Comedies and romantic films can be made for way under 100 million and they hit probably more often than super-hero films. When they do - it's like hitting the max-slot at Cache Creek. The return is potentially so much greater than with superhero films.

The key for WB will likely be MOS. The odds are an MOS sequel can't be made because of the legal issues. But, if MOS does well, that will open the door for another solo DC superhero film.

The question is what is well? No way IMO does MOS do Ironman numbers. I think it will struggle to do 250 million domestic. If it does reach that number I think it will get WB to take another look at one more solo try.

Short of that it's Batman Forever!!

BTW. Marvel/Disney is branching out with their recently announced Mars film. Marvel will do a prequel comic and the hope is, I guess, that this turns into a profitable comic/filmfranchise.

 

[TheIncredibleSk]

Why can't MOS do Iron Man numbers? Give me a legit reason.

 

[KalMart]

Well yes and no. Wedding Crashers was a "cheap" film and the Devil's Prada too. The latter cleaned SR's clock in the day.

Comedies and romantic films can be made for way under 100 million and they hit probably more often than super-hero films. When they do - it's like hitting the max-slot at Cache Creek. The return is potentially so much greater than with superhero films.

Films cost millions of dollars and have a premium shelf life of about 3 weeks if you're lucky, depreciating sharply after the first four days or so. It's still one of the riskiest and most expensive investments out there, even for the well-heeled. The only comforting thing is that a $20M movie that doesn't make its budget back doesn't make headlines like $200M movies....but still not that comforting to those who put up that $20M.

Then again...if you think about it...for the cost of every superhero or big-action movie, you could make five comedies/romances.

 

[cherokeesam]

There's really no such thing as a cheap superhero film.

You could do any one of the following on a TV-movie budget, just for starters: Luke Cage; Iron Fist; Moon Knight; Elektra; Daredevil; Deadpool; Green Arrow; Hawkeye; Nightwing; Batgirl; etc. etc. etc.

Any street-fighter/ crimefighter is pretty much little more than a cop show with snazzy costumes.