What is DC Entertainment doing? What is their plan?

[GhostPoet]

I think DC needs to stop making films until they can figure out what exactly they want to do. They need to decide how serious they want to take live action films and bring on directors who have a passion for bringing these characters to the big screen intact.

 

[SoulManX]

I haven't heard a damn thing from her in months.

I don't see a lot of press from her...her position seems very limited

 

[KangConquers]

I think DC needs to stop making films until they can figure out what exactly they want to do. They need to decide how serious they want to take live action films and bring on directors who have a passion for bringing these characters to the big screen intact.

After Green Lantern, I wouldn't be opposed to waiting another five years before they tackle a new character so they can tackle them properly.

 

[dnno1]

After Green Lantern, I wouldn't be opposed to waiting another five years before they tackle a new character so they can tackle them properly.

I would because I am not getting any younger.

 

[Cherry]

After Green Lantern, I wouldn't be opposed to waiting another five years before they tackle a new character so they can tackle them properly.

Considering how few DC movies have been made in the last 10 years, the last thing they need to do is keep WAITING, IMO. Just make a good JL script and go from there.

 

[SoulManX]

I say go ahead and make the GL2 use it to fixed some of the mistakes of part 1 bring in Steward to help Hal take out the next threat to the universe.

 

[Rocketman]

Really, nobody needs a solo film before they move on to the Justice League movie. A Justice League movie right away could work. It just needs to be very well written and not cluster-****ed.

And really, is it really so bad that we're not getting an overload of DC characters right now? Think about it. Marvel is bombarding us with Iron Man, Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, Captain America, and The Avengers. Not to mention X-Men, Spider-Man, Wolverine, Ghost Rider... all of this in literally 3 years.

I don't think it would be wise for DC to suddenly add to the already exhausting line-up of superhero movies that Marvel is bombarding us with.

Here's the most important point to consider: There will come a time when Marvel will be exactly like DC is right now. At some point, Marvel will run out of options. This is like a giant teeter-totter. Marvel is up, DC is down, and vice versa.

Once The Avengers is finished, it won't be so simple to make a Thor 2, or a Captain America 2, and it won't be so simple to reboot The Incredible Hulk for yet a third time. And it won't be so simple to reboot Iron Man after Robert Downey Jr. is done after Iron Man 3. We may get a sequel to The Avengers, but it won't be so easy splitting them all up again. Seriously imagine how difficult this could be. Robert Downey Jr. is the Iron Man franchise. Once he leaves, the Iron Man franchise will disappear for years, or at the very least, not be as successful.

As far as the X-Men, we got a prequel with Wolverine, and then First Class was a prequel to that prequel. Is it really going to be easy making an X-Men 4 that takes place after X-Men 3: The Last Stand? My guess is that this franchise is in serious trouble too. You can't just make five movies in the same continuity, and then, yet again, make a second attempt at a Wolverine movie in 2012. The whole story arc of this franchise has hit a giant PAUSE button. They're not furthering the story - they're going back, and then back again, and then back yet again. It's been 5 years since The Last Stand, and there's no plan to further that story more. It's a giant mess.

The only thing that Marvel could really have going for it after 2012 is the new Spider-Man... if that's a success. I can't imagine anyone flocking to a Nick Fury movie. (And yes, I'm well aware that X-Men is Fox and Spider-Man is Sony, but it's still relevant.)

So, in conclusion (as they say), Marvel might have a serious problem. They're super-successful right now, I'll admit. They're kicking DC in the ass. But this huge success might suddenly hit a brick wall.

Once this crisis occurs, DC will be there to get its turn. It's just going to take a few years. I really don't view DC as "having a problem" right now, honestly. They just need to get all of this organized, and then it'll be their turn. Like I said - it's a teeter-totter.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Really, nobody needs a solo film before they move on to the Justice League movie. A Justice League movie right away could work. It just needs to be very well written and not cluster-****ed.

And really, is it really so bad that we're not getting an overload of DC characters right now? Think about it. Marvel is bombarding us with Iron Man, Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, Captain America, and The Avengers. Not to mention X-Men, Spider-Man, Wolverine, Ghost Rider... all of this in literally 3 years.

I don't think it would be wise for DC to suddenly add to the already exhausting line-up of superhero movies that Marvel is bombarding us with.

Here's the most important point to consider: There will come a time when Marvel will be exactly like DC is right now. At some point, Marvel will run out of options. This is like a giant teeter-totter. Marvel is up, DC is down, and vice versa.

Once The Avengers is finished, it won't be so simple to make a Thor 2, or a Captain America 2, and it won't be so simple to reboot The Incredible Hulk for yet a third time. And it won't be so simple to reboot Iron Man after Robert Downey Jr. is done after Iron Man 3. We may get a sequel to The Avengers, but it won't be so easy splitting them all up again. Seriously imagine how difficult this could be. Robert Downey Jr. is the Iron Man franchise. Once he leaves, the Iron Man franchise will disappear for years, or at the very least, not be as successful.

As far as the X-Men, we got a prequel with Wolverine, and then First Class was a prequel to that prequel. Is it really going to be easy making an X-Men 4 that takes place after X-Men 3: The Last Stand? My guess is that this franchise is in serious trouble too. You can't just make five movies in the same continuity, and then, yet again, make a second attempt at a Wolverine movie in 2012. The whole story arc of this franchise has hit a giant PAUSE button. They're not furthering the story - they're going back, and then back again, and then back yet again. It's been 5 years since The Last Stand, and there's no plan to further that story more. It's a giant mess.

The only thing that Marvel could really have going for it after 2012 is the new Spider-Man... if that's a success. I can't imagine anyone flocking to a Nick Fury movie. (And yes, I'm well aware that X-Men is Fox and Spider-Man is Sony, but it's still relevant.)

So, in conclusion (as they say), Marvel might have a serious problem. They're super-successful right now, I'll admit. They're kicking DC in the ass. But this huge success might suddenly hit a brick wall.

Once this crisis occurs, DC will be there to get its turn. It's just going to take a few years. I really don't view DC as "having a problem" right now, honestly. They just need to get all of this organized, and then it'll be their turn. Like I said - it's a teeter-totter.

I agree. Marvel is jeopardizing the entire genre with oversaturation at this point, especially since it seems the superhero genre as a whole seems to be "playing it safe", something that, if the reviews of Green Lantern are true (I haven't seen it), DC is guilty of as well as Marvel. The genre is at a point where I think that, soon, there will be two options for it: Diversify (in terms of story) or Die.

 

[Airwings]

Rocketman: But after Justice League..... what will there be left to wish for? A solo film could NEVER top the team-up between these powerful heroes. Nothing should be larger, more fantastical than Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, The Flash, Green Lantern, Aquaman etc together. Just the scope of it, a grander scale than any hero can be on his/her own.
THAT IS THE REASON JL SHOULD BE SAVED TO LAST.

With all the iconic characters DC Comics has, it's logical to let them be on their own for a while, before teaming up. Flash and WW deserve their own films. Those who disagree with that last statement should not be allowed to see these solo films, because they don't want them to be made.

 

[Rocketman]

I agree. Marvel is jeopardizing the entire genre with oversaturation at this point, especially since it seems the superhero genre as a whole seems to be "playing it safe", something that, if the reviews of Green Lantern are true (I haven't seen it), DC is guilty of as well as Marvel. The genre is at a point where I think that, soon, there will be two options for it: Diversify (in terms of story) or Die.

I think Nolan will answer this problem by taking The Dark Knight Rises to a whole new level. That movie could seriously flip the entire genre on its ass and force it to crank out better movies - from DC and Marvel. If there was one movie that could potentially alter what a comic book movie is, The Dark Knight Rises is it. I'm surprised The Dark Knight in 2008 didn't drastically alter the genre on its own. I was hoping it would.

Green Lantern was good, and I really liked it a lot... but it definitely should've been better. It's not mind-blowing, and it's not the worst movie ever made either. I didn't hate it or love it. It was just decent, and decent isn't going to cut it when there are 5 or 6 superhero movies a year. Everybody needs to up their game, and Nolan is the guy who consistently does that. The love he gets is justified. I'll argue anyone who says otherwise.

People are drastically over-exaggerating when it comes to the quality of Green Lantern. It was a good movie, but it wasn't spectacular. Putting it on the level of Batman & Robin is borderline childish and immature. It's on the level of Superman Returns, and Superman Returns is nowhere NEAR what Schumacher did to us.

Honestly, if you want to talk about the biggest F-ups of the past decade, we're talking X-Men 3, Elektra, Catwoman, Spider-Man 3, Ghost Rider, Wolverine, and Jonah Hex. Green Lantern doesn't even come close to this level of mind-boggling ineptitude.

 

[SoulManX]

I think Nolan will answer this problem by taking The Dark Knight Rises to a whole new level. That movie could seriously flip the entire genre on its ass and force it to crank out better movies - from DC and Marvel. If there was one movie that could potentially alter what a comic book movie is, The Dark Knight Rises is it. I'm surprised The Dark Knight in 2008 didn't drastically alter the genre on its own. I was hoping it would.

Green Lantern was good, and I really liked it a lot... but it definitely should've been better. It's not mind-blowing, and it's not the worst movie ever made either. I didn't hate it or love it. It was just decent, and decent isn't going to cut it when there are 5 or 6 superhero movies a year. Everybody needs to up their game, and Nolan is the guy who consistently does that. The love he gets is justified. I'll argue anyone who says otherwise.

People are drastically over-exaggerating when it comes to the quality of Green Lantern. It was a good movie, but it wasn't spectacular. Putting it on the level of Batman & Robin is borderline childish and immature. It's on the level of Superman Returns, and Superman Returns is nowhere NEAR what Schumacher did to us.

Honestly, if you want to talk about the biggest F-ups of the past decade, we're talking X-Men 3, Elektra, Catwoman, Spider-Man 3, Ghost Rider, Wolverine, and Jonah Hex. Green Lantern doesn't even come close to this level of mind-boggling ineptitude.

DAREDEVIL THAT IS ALL

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Really, nobody needs a solo film before they move on to the Justice League movie. A Justice League movie right away could work. It just needs to be very well written and not cluster-****ed.

And really, is it really so bad that we're not getting an overload of DC characters right now? Think about it. Marvel is bombarding us with Iron Man, Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, Captain America, and The Avengers. Not to mention X-Men, Spider-Man, Wolverine, Ghost Rider... all of this in literally 3 years.

I don't think it would be wise for DC to suddenly add to the already exhausting line-up of superhero movies that Marvel is bombarding us with.

Here's the most important point to consider: There will come a time when Marvel will be exactly like DC is right now. At some point, Marvel will run out of options. This is like a giant teeter-totter. Marvel is up, DC is down, and vice versa.

Once The Avengers is finished, it won't be so simple to make a Thor 2, or a Captain America 2, and it won't be so simple to reboot The Incredible Hulk for yet a third time. And it won't be so simple to reboot Iron Man after Robert Downey Jr. is done after Iron Man 3. We may get a sequel to The Avengers, but it won't be so easy splitting them all up again. Seriously imagine how difficult this could be. Robert Downey Jr. is the Iron Man franchise. Once he leaves, the Iron Man franchise will disappear for years, or at the very least, not be as successful.

As far as the X-Men, we got a prequel with Wolverine, and then First Class was a prequel to that prequel. Is it really going to be easy making an X-Men 4 that takes place after X-Men 3: The Last Stand? My guess is that this franchise is in serious trouble too. You can't just make five movies in the same continuity, and then, yet again, make a second attempt at a Wolverine movie in 2012. The whole story arc of this franchise has hit a giant PAUSE button. They're not furthering the story - they're going back, and then back again, and then back yet again. It's been 5 years since The Last Stand, and there's no plan to further that story more. It's a giant mess.

The only thing that Marvel could really have going for it after 2012 is the new Spider-Man... if that's a success. I can't imagine anyone flocking to a Nick Fury movie. (And yes, I'm well aware that X-Men is Fox and Spider-Man is Sony, but it's still relevant.)

So, in conclusion (as they say), Marvel might have a serious problem. They're super-successful right now, I'll admit. They're kicking DC in the ass. But this huge success might suddenly hit a brick wall.

Once this crisis occurs, DC will be there to get its turn. It's just going to take a few years. I really don't view DC as "having a problem" right now, honestly. They just need to get all of this organized, and then it'll be their turn. Like I said - it's a teeter-totter.

Good points. Especially about post-Avengers. That could easily be a "now what?" point for Marvel. The XmenFC movie just used up every narrative possibility I can think of in this movie....not sure where they would go next there (Xavier losses his legs...nope...Xavier and Magneto break up...nope...Mystique changes sides...nope...humans betray Xavier's trust...nope). Losing RDJ could cripple Iron Man as you say and who knows how the new Spider-man will fly. Brandon Routh found out that a definitive performance is hard to follow...and that was years later.

But the problem is that DC could be in the same boat. Like Spider-Man, we still need to see if Superman can be rebooted and succeed. Like Iron Man, Batman is losing a key reason for it's success (Nolan). The future of GL, Wonder Woman, and Flash is iffy at best.

What we may be talking about is a lull in super hero movies period.

 

[Primal Slayer]

I doubt DC will be trying to get another hero out there since they have Superman and batman coming out within the next 2 years so we will probably have about 5 years until we get someone who isnt those two.

 

[Godzilla2014]

I think Nolan will answer this problem by taking The Dark Knight Rises to a whole new level. That movie could seriously flip the entire genre on its ass and force it to crank out better movies - from DC and Marvel. If there was one movie that could potentially alter what a comic book movie is, The Dark Knight Rises is it. I'm surprised The Dark Knight in 2008 didn't drastically alter the genre on its own. I was hoping it would.

Green Lantern was good, and I really liked it a lot... but it definitely should've been better. It's not mind-blowing, and it's not the worst movie ever made either. I didn't hate it or love it. It was just decent, and decent isn't going to cut it when there are 5 or 6 superhero movies a year. Everybody needs to up their game, and Nolan is the guy who consistently does that. The love he gets is justified. I'll argue anyone who says otherwise.

People are drastically over-exaggerating when it comes to the quality of Green Lantern. It was a good movie, but it wasn't spectacular. Putting it on the level of Batman & Robin is borderline childish and immature. It's on the level of Superman Returns, and Superman Returns is nowhere NEAR what Schumacher did to us.

Honestly, if you want to talk about the biggest F-ups of the past decade, we're talking X-Men 3, Elektra, Catwoman, Spider-Man 3, Ghost Rider, Wolverine, and Jonah Hex. Green Lantern doesn't even come close to this level of mind-boggling ineptitude.

I agree.

 

[Octoberist]

Green Lantern needed 60 mill for a sequel. Not gonna happen:

'Green Lantern': 5 Lessons for Hollywood bit.ly/kTs17z

 

[Octoberist]

In the current issue of The Hollywood Reporter, Heat Vision looks at what Warner Bros. should learn from the disappointing launch of a wannabe superhero.

7:44 PM 6/22/2011 by Borys Kit

Warner Bros. and comic book movie fans are reeling after the poor opening weekend performance of Green Lantern, which was to serve as a cornerstone for a line of DC Comics-based films to rival those of Marvel. Lantern collected a lower-than-expected $53 million domestically, and a 22 percent drop from Friday to Saturday indicated poor word-of-mouth. Warners insiders say that the $200 million-budgeted movie needed to open at least in the $60 million range for the studio to move forward with a sequel, for which it has already committed to a script by Michael Goldenberg. Even before the greenish dust has settled, here are five things that went wrong.

1. It's about a singular voice

Readers connect with comic books through original stories by writers and artists: For Green Lantern, it could be stories from the 1970s, by Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams or, more recently, by Geoff Johns. These people offer a vision and direction. The same rule applies to movies. When you watch Christopher Nolan's recent Batman movies, or even this summer's X-Men: First Class or Thor, you feel like there is a singular vision behind them.

In contrast, critics pounced on the generic, paint-by-numbers feel of the Lantern movie, which played like dozens of people were in control. And they were. In addition to director Martin Campbell, producer Donald De Line and DC executive Johns, four separate screenwriters were credited, and insiders say that even Warners execs Jeff Robinov, Greg Silverman and Lynn Harris were heavily involved, especially in the editing stage.

2. Special effects can be your Kryptonite

A lot of blame is going to fall on Campbell. Having launched the stints of two James Bond actors (Pierce Brosnan in GoldenEye and Daniel Craig in Casino Royale) and made the great adventure movie The Mask of Zorro, Campbell specializes in gritty, on-the-ground action. But Lantern is about a man who becomes part of an intergalactic police force, and Campbell has almost no experience in that sci-fi realm. A $200 million summer tentpole shouldn't be on-the-job training.

Plus, Warners underestimated the scope of the special effects, whose costs began to skyrocket when it was decided that the Green Lantern suit would be created digitally. The complex effects work, combined with the decision to convert the film to 3D, added months to the production schedule, preventing early marketing and test screenings, which could have helped to hone the film.
3. Be like Marvel

Part of Warners' problem is the way it has structured DC Entertainment. The studio created the subdivision in 2009 to better plan its franchises. But DC remains subservient to Warners in many ways, with its execs being more "suggestors" than anything else.

Marvel, on the other hand, has an autonomous movie division in Marvel Studios. Run by Kevin Feige, it has continually demonstrated an understanding of its core audience -- the comic book fans -- and how to parlay that intense base into a broader audience of regular moviegoers. From Iron Man to Thor, it has made movies that appeal to fanboys and average moviegoers alike.

At Warners, it's the studio division that says yes or no to DC projects, and it can change them up however it sees fit. Last summer's Jonah Hex was a box-office disaster, and even Warners' quasi-DC movies Watchmen and V for Vendetta failed to lure more than hard-core fanboys. You don't have to be a geek to make these movies, but you need to know what geeks like and, more importantly, how to translate that into accessible themes.

4. Don't be like Marvel

Marvel has a clear plan: Take a core group of characters (Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Captain America) and weave them into a series of movies that lead to one big team-up (next summer's The Avengers). It works for fans and allows moviegoers not familiar with the Marvel Universe to be indoctrinated.
Green Lantern was to have been the first step toward making a movie featuring the Justice League, DC's all-star collection of superheroes. But what worked for Marvel may not for DC, which in its publishing history established the connections within its universe only after Marvel had already done the same for its world.

DC should be blazing its own path. Heroes like Superman are more iconic, more primal and elemental, more akin to the Greek gods than their conflicted counterparts in the Marvel universe. DC superheroes are our modern-day Hermes, the god of speed, or Hercules, the demigod son of Zeus. They can stand alone.

5. Cloud villains don't work

Didn't anyone get the memo after 2007's Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer? That movie changed the long-standing comics villain Galactus from a giant humanoid into a big black cloud, and was ridiculed.
Parallax in Lantern looks like another demonic black cloud, and that design was a misstep. Neither audiences nor the Green Lantern can wrap their arms around him -- he's just another smoke monster escaped from the island on Lost. Superhero Screenwriting 101: If audiences don't care about the villain, they won't care about the movie.

 

[Captain Marvel]

As far as the X-Men, we got a prequel with Wolverine, and then First Class was a prequel to that prequel. Is it really going to be easy making an X-Men 4 that takes place after X-Men 3: The Last Stand? My guess is that this franchise is in serious trouble too. You can't just make five movies in the same continuity, and then, yet again, make a second attempt at a Wolverine movie in 2012. The whole story arc of this franchise has hit a giant PAUSE button. They're not furthering the story - they're going back, and then back again, and then back yet again. It's been 5 years since The Last Stand, and there's no plan to further that story more. It's a giant mess.

And how. Brett Ratner dropped a massive turd on the X-Men franchise, and it's going to take nothing short of a miracle to clean that up. Is it any wonder that they decided to start a franchise in the past, in order to put off having to clean up Ratner's mess a little while longer? Fox certainly isn't interested in rebooting, as they're not prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but man did he screw things up for them. Professor X, Jean Grey, and Cyclops dead, as well as a depowered Magneto and Mystique... Sure, some of them had the seeds of their resolution planted in the last movie, but having to resolve SO many threads before you can move on to the next movie is ridiculous.

"Oh, hey guys! Welcome to X-Men 4! By the way, Professor X came back to life in the comatose body of his brain-dead twin brother and Magneto and Mystique got their powers back. Oh yeah, and Cyclops didn't really die and neither did Phoenix. Now enjoy the movie."

It's going to take a miracle to clear that mess up AND make a good movie. Presuming, of course, that Fox isn't prepared to move forward without some of those characters. And I hope they aren't, because frankly, Cyclops and Phoenix got shafted in those movies in a lot of ways and I'd like to see them fixed (starting with recasting Cyclops. I'm convinced James Marsden gets his jobs due to Singer's version of the casting couch. There's no way he'd keep getting work otherwise).

 

[jmc]

I think Nolan will answer this problem by taking The Dark Knight Rises to a whole new level. That movie could seriously flip the entire genre on its ass and force it to crank out better movies - from DC and Marvel. If there was one movie that could potentially alter what a comic book movie is, The Dark Knight Rises is it. I'm surprised The Dark Knight in 2008 didn't drastically alter the genre on its own. I was hoping it would.

The Dark Knight should have been the turning point, instead all we've gotten is formulaic stuff with a costume change. Even IM went above and beyond the standard superhero film to some extent but was let down by it's lame arse sequel. What should have happened after TDK is that WB (and other studios) should have made the effort to match that movie, see what worked from a story telling perspective and from a production perspective and follow the same path. Results have been mixed to say the least, some stuff has worked but only on a fundamental level, some stuff outright failed, one thing they all have in common is that there's been no real effort to elevate them to anything beyond what they already are, it's like everyone's seen what TDK did and went 'too hard'. I'm doubtful Rises is going to change anything now, it's the end of this Batman series, the end of Chris Nolan's tenure at the helm and WB is on their own from here on in, they can't afford to rely on one man to do all the work that they should be doing themselves.

 

[Godzilla2014]

[

The Dark Knight should have been the turning point, instead all we've gotten is formulaic stuff with a costume change. Even IM went above and beyond the standard superhero film to some extent but was let down by it's lame arse sequel. What should have happened after TDK is that WB (and other studios) should have made the effort to match that movie, see what worked from a story telling perspective and from a production perspective and follow the same path. Results have been mixed to say the least, some stuff has worked but only on a fundamental level, some stuff outright failed, one thing they all have in common is that there's been no real effort to elevate them to anything beyond what they already are, it's like everyone's seen what TDK did and went 'too hard'. I'm doubtful Rises is going to change anything now, it's the end of this Batman series, the end of Chris Nolan's tenure at the helm and WB is on their own from here on in, they can't afford to rely on one man to do all the work that they should be doing themselves.

Exactly. I have no idea why no one seems to be ripping off the highest grossing superhero film in American history, and the 3rd highest overall.

 

[Octoberist]

At least they should strive to make films that can add something to the genre like TDK ir Iron man instead of polluting it.

 

[KalMart]

[

Exactly. I have no idea why no one seems to be ripping off the highest grossing superhero film in American history, and the 3rd highest overall.

Because Nolan can only direct one film at a time...and he's currently doing another Batman.

 

[MadVillainy]

I would because I am not getting any younger.

Damn f***ing straight.

I say go ahead and make the GL2 use it to fixed some of the mistakes of part 1 bring in Steward to help Hal take out the next threat to the universe.

Why make a sequel to a critically and financially disappointing movie?

3. Be like Marvel

Part of Warners' problem is the way it has structured DC Entertainment. The studio created the subdivision in 2009 to better plan its franchises. But DC remains subservient to Warners in many ways, with its execs being more "suggestors" than anything else.

Marvel, on the other hand, has an autonomous movie division in Marvel Studios. Run by Kevin Feige, it has continually demonstrated an understanding of its core audience -- the comic book fans -- and how to parlay that intense base into a broader audience of regular moviegoers. From Iron Man to Thor, it has made movies that appeal to fanboys and average moviegoers alike.

At Warners, it's the studio division that says yes or no to DC projects, and it can change them up however it sees fit. Last summer's Jonah Hex was a box-office disaster, and even Warners' quasi-DC movies Watchmen and V for Vendetta failed to lure more than hard-core fanboys. You don't have to be a geek to make these movies, but you need to know what geeks like and, more importantly, how to translate that into accessible themes.

4. Don't be like Marvel

Marvel has a clear plan: Take a core group of characters (Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Captain America) and weave them into a series of movies that lead to one big team-up (next summer's The Avengers). It works for fans and allows moviegoers not familiar with the Marvel Universe to be indoctrinated.
Green Lantern was to have been the first step toward making a movie featuring the Justice League, DC's all-star collection of superheroes. But what worked for Marvel may not for DC, which in its publishing history established the connections within its universe only after Marvel had already done the same for its world.

DC should be blazing its own path. Heroes like Superman are more iconic, more primal and elemental, more akin to the Greek gods than their conflicted counterparts in the Marvel universe. DC superheroes are our modern-day Hermes, the god of speed, or Hercules, the demigod son of Zeus. They can stand alone.
.

These are the ones they should really look at. I know certain members are going to b*tch about comparing MArvel and DC but whatever

 

[jmc]

At least they should strive to make films that can add something to the genre like TDK ir Iron man instead of polluting it.

That's it, it's like there's no effort and because of that everything since TDK has looked inferior.

 

[KalMart]

Maybe superhero movies reached the peak of their evolution for this generation with TDK. Could be that the best thing for comic-based movies is to take a break for a while and start up fresh again later down the road....like when things were rejuvenated in 2001....and start it off with new characters that haven't had movies before.

 

[MadVillainy]

I really dont think superhero films have reached their peak in evolution for this generation. Even though I liked TDK better, First Class was a very good step forward in terms of evolution of the superhero movie PLUS it was an actual good movie.

In terms of quality superhero movies still can evolve for the better.