What is DC Entertainment doing? What is their plan?

[Rocketman]

I think WB's attempt at matching TDK was getting Martin Campbell, who directed Casino Royale, which was a hardcore, serious James Bond movie.

Campbell is to Bond, what Nolan is to Batman. Before Casino Royale, we were in the "Schumacher Era" of Bond movies. Campbell rebooted, and look at how freakin' sweet Casino Royale was.

Green Lantern could've been the next Dark Knight. Martin Campbell has proven that he's a very similar director to Nolan. The problem is that WB clearly gave Campbell zero freedom. This wasn't his movie. It's hardly even a Martin Campbell movie.

And I think WB might have been excited over Avatar being the "big blue alien movie" that wasn't well written, but still made a gazillion dollars, so that same audience would see the "big green alien movie" that wasn't well written either. Really, Green Lantern had everything going for it.

I'm telling you, and you can take this to the bank, because I am 110% certain of this: If WB messes or screws with Nolan in any way, Nolan will leave WB and make a James Bond movie. Guaranteed. WB needs to be extremely careful, because Nolan would make an incredible Bond movie.

Also, all this Martin Campbell stuff is very similar to what's happened to M. Night Shyamalan. People say he's suddenly gotten bad, or that he's lost his touch, but that's not what happened at all. That dude has been bombarded with so much studio interference, that his name is simply attached to his movie posters, and that's about the extent of what he's allowed to do creatively. You have to remember, Night's the man who made The Sixth Sense, which is one of the biggest critically acclaimed box office smashes of all-time, and was nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars. Then, immediately after, he gave us Unbreakable, considered one of the best and most realistic superhero movies ever made (compared to The Dark Knight often). Then he gave us Signs, which, although not as critically acclaimed, was a HUGE box office smash. The Village was again a box office GIANT.

Then Night left Touchstone and went to WB. WB then helped Night make Lady in the Water... and this is when things immediately changed. When Lady in the Water tanked, Night then went to Fox and made The Happening, and Fox completely tore what chance that movie had to shreds. If you read the script to The Happening (originally titled "The Green Effect"), what you see isn't so similar.

Must I remind you of The Last Airbender, which is based on Night's favorite television series of all-time, which is a movie that originally had a run-time of over three hours, and was forced to be cut in half by Paramount? Literally, what we saw in theaters was half of the movie. It was an over-edited, sloppily-paced nightmare, and Night had very little to do with it.

Now, M. Night Shyamalan has become a laughing stock. Why? Because studios treated a very talented man like a human pinball, and now he can't do what he wants to do. Average Joe Movie-Goer doesn't care about the studio process, they care about the name attached to the movie, and if M. Night Shyamalan's movies are sucking now, it's automatically assumed that M. Night himself must suck. Not the case in the slightest.

I fear for Nolan.

 

[Godzilla2014]

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

Agreed.

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

Why does Nolan have to direct any film that tries to copy The Dark Knight's success?

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

Possibly.

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.

I disagree.

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.

Agreed. The Dark Knight broke boundaries for the genre. If the rest of the genre were to diversify, so that the different franchises felt different from the others, then I think it could go on for many years into the future.

 

[MadVillainy]

I think WB's attempt at matching TDK was getting Martin Campbell, who directed Casino Royale, which was a hardcore, serious James Bond movie.

Campbell is to Bond, what Nolan is to Batman. Before Casino Royale, we were in the "Schumacher Era" of Bond movies. Campbell rebooted, and look at how freakin' sweet Casino Royale was.

Green Lantern could've been the next Dark Knight. Martin Campbell has proven that he's a very similar director to Nolan. The problem is that WB clearly gave Campbell zero freedom. This wasn't his movie. It's hardly even a Martin Campbell movie.

And I think WB might have been excited over Avatar being the "big blue alien movie" that wasn't well written, but still made a gazillion dollars, so that same audience would see the "big green alien movie" that wasn't well written either. Really, Green Lantern had everything going for it.

I dont think WB was really trying to match TDK with GL. I think they wanted a new successful franchise but I'd be surprised if they actually thought it would be on TDK level

 

[KalMart]

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.

Maybe a big key to that is a filmmaker with a distinct style/voice, and some artistic freedom to reinterpret the character/world they're portraying.

 

[MadVillainy]

Bingo KalMart.

 

[Metallo]

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.

Agreed on a lot of points. To me Green Lantern felt like the kind of movie the Warner Bros of the 90's would have made. A paint by the numbers committee produced toy commercial like Batman & Robin, Steel, or the aborted Superman Lives. Its not AS bad as any of those but it feels like it was put together the same way at every turn.

It takes a massive failure on all fronts for WB to even begin to take these properties seriously as big screen films. I would have thought B&R, Catwoman, and Jonah Hex would have been enough to teach them but I guess not.

 

[KalMart]

Why does Nolan have to direct any film that tries to copy The Dark Knight's success?

I didn't mean Nolan specifically...my last post addresses this more clearly, I hope.

I think the less they treat/approach these films as money-making machines, and more as really good films on a grand scale that happen to be based on a character from the comics...the better the chance of at least a few of them (hopefully) striking a real chord with mass audiences. Obviously, that can backfire a la Hulk and Superman Returns...but I think the big key to the 'rebirth' in the early 2000's was (at least with Xmen) a concentration on them more as films, and less as vehicles.

 

[Godzilla2014]

I think WB's attempt at matching TDK was getting Martin Campbell, who directed Casino Royale, which was a hardcore, serious James Bond movie.

Campbell is to Bond, what Nolan is to Batman. Before Casino Royale, we were in the "Schumacher Era" of Bond movies. Campbell rebooted, and look at how freakin' sweet Casino Royale was.

Green Lantern could've been the next Dark Knight. Martin Campbell has proven that he's a very similar director to Nolan. The problem is that WB clearly gave Campbell zero freedom. This wasn't his movie. It's hardly even a Martin Campbell movie.

And I think WB might have been excited over Avatar being the "big blue alien movie" that wasn't well written, but still made a gazillion dollars, so that same audience would see the "big green alien movie" that wasn't well written either. Really, Green Lantern had everything going for it.

I'm telling you, and you can take this to the bank, because I am 110% certain of this: If WB messes or screws with Nolan in any way, Nolan will leave WB and make a James Bond movie. Guaranteed. WB needs to be extremely careful, because Nolan will flip that ****** and make an incredible movie out of it.

Also, all this Martin Campbell stuff is very similar to what's happened to M. Night Shyamalan. People say he's suddenly gotten bad, or that he's lost his touch, but that's not what happened at all. That dude has been bombarded with so much studio interference, that his name is simply attached to his movie posters, and that's about the extent of what he's allowed to do creatively. You have to remember, Night's the man who made The Sixth Sense, which is one of the biggest critically acclaimed box office smashes of all-time, and was nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars. Then, immediately after, he gave us Unbreakable, considered one of the best and most realistic superhero movies ever made (compared to The Dark Knight often). Then he gave us Signs, which, although not as critically acclaimed, was a HUGE box office smash. The Village was again a box office GIANT.

Then Night left Touchstone and went to WB. WB then helped Night make Lady in the Water... and this is when things immediately changed. When Lady in the Water tanked, Night then went to Fox and made The Happening, and Fox completely tore what chance that movie had to shreds. If you read the script to The Happening (originally titled "The Green Effect"), what you see isn't so similar.

Must I remind you of The Last Airbender, which is based on Night's favorite television series of all-time, which is a movie that originally had a run-time of over three hours, and was forced to be cut in half by Paramount? Literally, what we saw in theaters was half of the movie. It was an over-edited, sloppily-paced nightmare, and Night had very little to do with it.

Now, M. Night Shyamalan has become a laughing stock. Why? Because studios treated a very talented man like a human pinball, and now he can't do what he wants to do. Average Joe Movie-Goer doesn't care about the studio process, they care about the name attached to the movie, and if M. Night Shyamalan's movies are sucking now, it's automatically assumed that M. Night himself must suck. Not the case in the slightest.

I fear for Nolan.

I agree. Green Lantern had every chance to be so much more. It could have been a superhero version of Star Wars, with Green Lanterns instead of Jedi Knights, Green Lantern Power Rings instead of lightsabers, and Earth instead of Tatooine. Yet it basically was a retread of Iron Man. All of this potential to be unique, and they squandered it on such a generic film.

 

[MadVillainy]

I agree. Green Lantern had every chance to be so much more. It could have been a superhero version of Star Wars, with Green Lanterns instead of Jedi Knights, Green Lantern Power Rings instead of lightsabers, and Earth instead of Tatooine. Yet it basically was a retread of Iron Man. All of this potential to be unique, and they squandered it on such a generic film.

BUt didnt you kinda just explain how GL wouldnt be unique?
They shouldnt have gone in it thinking about making it like Star Wars

 

[jmc]

I think artistic interpretation is very much what is amiss. Why does Nolan's Batman stand out? 1) It's not bound to any other franchise, 2) The creative team were unified in there goals, 3) The films came about organically, 4) They make you think. The only film that comes close to fitting similar criteria is X-men FC, and that turned out pretty well (considering it was a rush job). The great irony is that we have all these characters at our disposal that could easily bring wide diversity to superhero films but the studios are treating them all the same, it's as if nothing has been learned in 3 years.

 

[jmc]

BUt didnt you kinda just explain how GL wouldnt be unique?
They shouldnt have gone in it thinking about making it like Star Wars

They certainly crapped on about it being like Star Wars.

 

[KalMart]

I agree. Green Lantern had every chance to be so much more. It could have been a superhero version of Star Wars, with Green Lanterns instead of Jedi Knights, Green Lantern Power Rings instead of lightsabers, and Earth instead of Tatooine. Yet it basically was a retread of Iron Man. All of this potential to be unique, and they squandered it on such a generic film.

If you go into something trying to duplicate another film/franchises success/appeal, you're pretty-much setting yourself up for a fall if you're not that franchise. If that was in any way a 'stragey', they should have been more concerned with being the first GL...and have that make a unique stamp in movies with an experience unlike anything before....instead of being the 'next' version of anything.

That's how Star Wars did it.

 

[MadVillainy]

I havent seen GL yet so I dont know what they did wrong, but I always found that "Next Star Wars"/"Superhero Star Wars" label to be a) stupid b) cocky c) setting itself up for failure

 

[KalMart]

I think artistic interpretation is very much what is amiss. Why does Nolan's Batman stand out? 1) It's not bound to any other franchise, 2) The creative team were unified in there goals, 3) The films came about organically, 4) They make you think. The only film that comes close to fitting similar criteria is X-men FC, and that turned out pretty well (considering it was a rush job). The great irony is that we have all these characters at our disposal that could easily bring wide diversity to superhero films but the studios are treating them all the same, it's as if nothing has been learned in 3 years.

I still feel it's better to concentrate on fewer characters/movies and make them better....instead of feeling that we have to get so many characters into movies. Movies shouldn't be the ultimate evolution/proving ground for any comic character, really....and it shouldn't diminish their relevance/quality as a comic if they don't get a movie. Not to say that some are just more qualified than others....but I'd say leave it up to the creative ones to pick those that appeal to them and develop into movies...instead of making some sort of executive decision that 'we need to make a Flash movie' or what have you.

If a superhero movie of any character is going to get made, it should be because a good filmmaker/writer/etc. really wants to make one and convinces the studios that it will be good. Not because it's sitting there on the comic shelves beckoning the execs to exploit it. Otherwise, you're just going to get more two-hour commercials disguised as movies.

 

[MadVillainy]

If a superhero movie of any character is going to get made, it should be because a good filmmaker/writer/etc. really wants to make one and convinces the studios that it will be good. Not because it's sitting there on the comic shelves beckoning the execs to exploit it. Otherwise, you're just going to get more two-hour commercials disguised as movies.

I see where you're coming from, but maybe a great potential director doesnt really even know the character until an exec brings it up. It should be a mix I think

 

[Godzilla2014]

BUt didnt you kinda just explain how GL wouldnt be unique?
They shouldnt have gone in it thinking about making it like Star Wars

The idea was to say that Green Lantern could have been a space opera much the same way The Dark Knight was a crime drama. The example of replacing things in Star Wars with their Green Lantern counterparts is meant to provide a conceptual starting point for your imagination in terms of potential stories and the overall mood of the series and the universe it is set in.

I think artistic interpretation is very much what is amiss. Why does Nolan's Batman stand out? 1) It's not bound to any other franchise, 2) The creative team were unified in there goals, 3) The films came about organically. The only film that comes close to fitting similar criteria is X-men FC, and that turned out pretty well (considering it was a rush job). The great irony is that we have all these characters at our disposal that could easily bring wide diversity to superhero films but the studios are treating them all the same, it's as if nothing has been learned in 3 years.

I agree. Superhero comic books have survived for so many years precisely because they have told a variety of stories. Batman is a detective story and crime drama. Superman is a science-fiction story. Wonder Woman has Greek mythology. Green Lantern is a space opera. Get the idea?
This is something that the superhero films have yet to capitalize on, outside of The Dark Knight. I recently saw a review for Green Lantern by Christopher Orr for The Atlantic that said the genre is "inherently limited". Let's prove Christopher Orr to be wrong.

 

[KRIM]

I think artistic interpretation is very much what is amiss. Why does Nolan's Batman stand out? 1) It's not bound to any other franchise, 2) The creative team were unified in there goals, 3) The films came about organically, 4) They make you think. The only film that comes close to fitting similar criteria is X-men FC, and that turned out pretty well (considering it was a rush job). The great irony is that we have all these characters at our disposal that could easily bring wide diversity to superhero films but the studios are treating them all the same, it's as if nothing has been learned in 3 years.

Yeah, it's no surprise the biggest successes are the ones that have managed to carve out their own identity for the properties. The ones that are either poorly managed or at the onset have tried to replicate other franchises, are always the ones that do poorer.

I feel terrible for GL, and at the prospects of this possibly affecting other brands that were set to be launched in the hopes that GL was a resounding win.

I havent seen GL yet so I dont know what they did wrong, but I always found that "Next Star Wars"/"Superhero Star Wars" label to be a) stupid b) cocky c) setting itself up for failure

No, it's an accurate description of the GL mythos. It really is one of the more grand universes out in the comic book realm. Plus the similarities between the Corps/Jedi and the spiritual essences (Will/The Force) having a direct impact on the events and characters, are easily spotted.

 

[MadVillainy]

Im not saying GL doesnt have similarities with Star Wars, I was just pointing out how someone said GL is unique while relating it will many of the major points of Star Wars.

It's a moot point, it was just something I noticed

 

[KalMart]

I see where you're coming from, but maybe a great potential director doesnt really even know the character until an exec brings it up. It should be a mix I think

But you can't really force someone to love a character....even though you can pay them to tolerate it enough to make a movie. Either that, or give them enough time and room to find something in the character/story that grabs them cinematically, then let them go with it. Like Singer with XMen, Nolan with Batman, and Donner with Superman. There's a sense in those movies that those directors found those characters to be the greatest characters in the world...through a filmmaker's eye.

To be fair, it's not like you can stop some up-and-coming filmmaker from taking whatever they can to try and make it big. I don't have a particular fondness for, say, Plastic Man...but if a studio wanted to hire me to make the film, and I wasn't already a Spielberg or Nolan or Abrams...you bet your ass I'd try to find a way to really like him.

 

[Godzilla2014]

If you go into something trying to duplicate another film/franchises success/appeal, you're pretty-much setting yourself up for a fall if you're not that franchise. If that was in any way a 'stragey', they should have been more concerned with being the first GL...and have that make a unique stamp in movies with an experience unlike anything before....instead of being the 'next' version of anything.

That's how Star Wars did it.

Oh please. Star Wars is itself derivative. It was meant to be the next version of fantasy stories, which mixed it with science-fiction. Even The Dark Knight took the superhero genre and mixed it with crime dramas and suspense thrillers. The point is that they surprised audiences by blending genres to create new sub-genres.
The point is that Green Lantern should have been more like Star Wars, and less like Iron Man. That would make it unique in the superhero genre.

I still feel it's better to concentrate on fewer characters/movies and make them better....instead of feeling that we have to get so many characters into movies. Movies shouldn't be the ultimate evolution/proving ground for any comic character, really....and it shouldn't diminish their relevance/quality as a comic if they don't get a movie. Not to say that some are just more qualified than others....but I'd say leave it up to the creative ones to pick those that appeal to them and develop into movies...instead of making some sort of executive decision that 'we need to make a Flash movie' or what have you.

If a superhero movie of any character is going to get made, it should be because a good filmmaker/writer/etc. really wants to make one and convinces the studios that it will be good. Not because it's sitting there on the comic shelves beckoning the execs to exploit it. Otherwise, you're just going to get more two-hour commercials disguised as movies.

I agree.

 

[KalMart]

Oh please. Star Wars is itself derivative. It was meant to be the next version of fantasy stories, which mixed it with science-fiction.

Ah, but it made derivative work and spun it into its own thing....in an original way. Others just stay derivative.

Raiders was just a two-hour adventure serial....but made it its own by being such a good movie.

 

[MadVillainy]

But you can't really force someone to love a character....even though you can pay them to tolerate it enough to make movie. Either that, or give them enough time and room to find something in the character/story that grabs them cinematically, then let them go with it. Like Singer with XMen, Nolan with Batman, and Donner with Superman. There's a sense in those movies that those directors found those characters to be the greatest characters in the world...through a filmmaker's eye.

I mean, I wasnt big on Thor before the movie and now I like him and plan to read some more stuff on him. Hell, before GL was announced I wasnt that into him but I read alot of his stuff.
Let's say there's a good director and the studio wants to make an Aquaman movie. The director doesnt really have an opinion otherwise so they give him stuff to read, including the script, to see if he/she is interested in the character. After the reading, the director likes the character, wants to do the movie, and has his/her ideas on how to do it. Some people dont know that they would like something, until they discover it.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Yeah, it's no surprise the biggest successes are the ones that have managed to carve out their own identity for the properties. The ones that are either poorly managed or at the onset have tried to replicate other franchises, are always the ones that do poorer.

I feel terrible for GL, and at the prospects of this possibly affecting other brands that were set to be launched in the hopes that GL was a resounding win.


No, it's an accurate description of the GL mythos. It really is one of the more grand universes out in the comic book realm. Plus the similarities between the Corps/Jedi and the spiritual essences (Will/The Force) having a direct impact on the events and characters, are easily spotted.

Exactly!

Im not saying GL doesnt have similarities with Star Wars, I was just pointing out how someone said GL is unique while relating it will many of the major points of Star Wars.

It's a moot point, it was just something I noticed

That was me. The idea is that it should be mix of superheroes with Star Wars-esque space opera.

But you can't really force someone to love a character....even though you can pay them to tolerate it enough to make movie. Either that, or give them enough time and room to find something in the character/story that grabs them cinematically, then let them go with it. Like Singer with XMen, Nolan with Batman, and Donner with Superman. There's a sense in those movies that those directors found those characters to be the greatest characters in the world...through a filmmaker's eye.

To be fair, it's not like you can stop some up-and-coming filmmaker from taking whatever they can to try and make it big. I don't have a particular fondness for, say, Plastic Man...but if a studio wanted to hire me to make the film, and I wasn't already a Spielberg or Nolan or Abrams...you bet your ass I'd try to find a way to really like him.

I completely agree.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Ah, but it made derivative work and spun it into its own thing....in an original way. Others just stay derivative.

Raiders was just a two-hour adventure serial....but made it its own by being such a good movie.

Like I said before, Star Wars is a bunch of old story yarns sewn into a new tapestry. The Dark Knight mixed superheroes and crime drama. These aren't entirely new, but they stood out because of the way they mixed their components into a new work.

 

[KalMart]

Like I said before, Star Wars is a bunch of old story yarns sewn into a new tapestry. The Dark Knight mixed superheroes and crime drama. These aren't entirely new, but they stood out because of the way they mixed their components into a new work.

I know what you meant. My point (and yours probably) is that it's not the originality of the content as much as the originality of the experience.

This is the way I look at it with comic-based movies....


When you look at the better ones...TDK, STM (in its day), Xmen (in its day)...even Iron Man....

Reinterpretations/modifications aside...it's not necessarily that the filmmakers approached them as if they were bringing the comics to the big screen....it's more like they approached them as if the characters were MADE for movies, as if the format of motion pictures was able to bring out their best qualities and appeal. Hence, their appeal to comic and non-comic fans alike....since both crowds love good movies.