What is DC Entertainment doing? What is their plan?

[Godzilla2014]

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.

I completely agree.

Off topic: Ah yes, you know you're getting old when movies from when you grew up are referred to in the context of "at the time" or "in its day".

 

[jmc]

I think the main issue is that films like Star Wars, like Raiders, like TDK, like Avatar strive to give you something different, it's not really about what elements they may have borrowed, it's not even really about whether the story has been told a hundred times before. The films don't have to be heavy or thought provoking, but they try and give you something you haven't seen before, that's what's missing. How many superhero films are there where the lead character could be interchangeable? Plenty.

 

[Godzilla2014]

I think the main issue is that films like Star Wars, like Raiders, like TDK, like Avatar strive to give you something different, it's not really about what elements they may have borrowed, it's not even really about whether the story has been told a hundred times before. The films don't have to be heavy or thought provoking, but they try and give you something you haven't seen before, that's what's missing. How many superhero films are there where the lead character could be interchangeable? Plenty.

I agree about most everything except that Avatar didn't give us anything really different. It was a cliched mess in terms of story and plot. The story wasn't as engaging or interesting as the visuals were.

 

[KalMart]

I think the main issue is that films like Star Wars, like Raiders, like TDK, like Avatar strive to give you something different, it's not really about what elements they may have borrowed, it's not even really about whether the story has been told a hundred times before. The films don't have to be heavy or thought provoking, but they try and give you something you haven't seen before, that's what's missing. How many superhero films are there where the lead character could be interchangeable? Plenty.

Movies that try to capitalize on anything 'popular' have been like that from the beginning. You just hope you get a few gems every now and then.

 

[Kyle Rayner]

I think the main issue is that films like Star Wars, like Raiders, like TDK, like Avatar strive to give you something different, it's not really about what elements they may have borrowed, it's not even really about whether the story has been told a hundred times before. The films don't have to be heavy or thought provoking, but they try and give you something you haven't seen before, that's what's missing. How many superhero films are there where the lead character could be interchangeable? Plenty.

Sorry but I have to dissagree with you. Star Wars, TDK and Avatar were only good because of the director's vision. We can name here the Marvel's and DC's that have been out in the last 20 years, they are well balanced, most of the success of the movies was because of the director. Martin Campbell brough James Bond to the 21st Century, it wasn't until Campbell that I started watching James Bond. When DC announced him directing GL I was happy cause I knew that if he revived James Bond, GL should be a walk in the park. I loved GL, but right now Batman Begins is showing on TV and I can't help but wonder if there's someone on DC entertaintment thinking of what to do next. What's the right thing to do. That lady Diane Nelson is only aiming for Vertigo and Wildcats, nothing else and she hasn't shown her face anywhere in about 2 years. Geoff Johns has been the goldenboy for DC and all he had to do was take a step back and let Campbell do his thing. I'm still hoping for that GL2.

 

[jmc]

^ What's to disagree with? The director vision is what makes them different. If anything you're agreeing with me.

 

[jmc]

I agree about most everything except that Avatar didn't give us anything really different. It was a cliched mess in terms of story and plot. The story wasn't as engaging or interesting as the visuals were.

From a 3D perspective it did, regardless of it's lame arse story (which I agree wasn't engaging), you don't make 2 billion dollars for nothing.

 

[Godzilla2014]

From a 3D perspective it did, regardless of it's lame arse story (which I agree wasn't engaging), you don't make 2 billion dollars for nothing.

Even in 3D, it wasn't anything remarkable.

 

[spider-neil]

Even in 3D, it wasn't anything remarkable.

avatar was INCREDIBLE in 3D. I suspect the reason why alice in wonderland did 1 BILLION was because the GA were DESPARATE for 3D afterwards, I know I was.

 

[psylockolussus]

Avatar was good but overrated.

 

[jmc]

No, they were fooled into thinking it was the same 3d as Avatar.

 

[psylockolussus]

My suggestion for DC Entertainment

2011- Green Lantern
2012- Superman (Man of Steel)
2013- Flash
2014- Batman (reboot)
2015- Wonder Woman
2016- Aquaman
2017- Hawkgirl
2018- Martian Manhunter
2020- Justice League

 

[jmc]

A better suggestion is to not have dates at all.

 

[The Sage]

Indeed. Just take the time to get it right. Though Flash for 2013 is pretty feasible...or at least it could be.

I wish they would push forward with a Wonder Woman flick out of all of them.

 

[psylockolussus]

A better suggestion is to not have dates at all.

Not really, DC Entertainment doesn't set dates thats why they don't make them. Marvel sets the dates pretty quickly and look how many movies they have done so far.

 

[jmc]

Yeah but Marvel hasn't exactly hit them out of the park. The problem with announcing dates ahead of time like that is that you corner yourself into an un-winnable position, you might be able to produce a good film, but the race against the clock makes mistakes and shortcuts all the more likely to happen. Things need to be organic.

 

[psylockolussus]

Yeah but Marvel hasn't exactly hit them out of the park. The problem with announcing dates ahead of time like that is that you corner yourself into an un-winnable position, you might be able to produce a good film, but the race against the clock makes mistakes and shortcuts all the more likely to happen. Things need to be organic.

Yeah that's why I suggested 1 movie per year. They can work in 1 movie for 2 years, I don't see any problem with it. And if they really want to do a Justice League movie, they better start planning and hiring people and not put it in development hell like Wonder Woman.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

Yeah but Marvel hasn't exactly hit them out of the park. The problem with announcing dates ahead of time like that is that you corner yourself into an un-winnable position, you might be able to produce a good film, but the race against the clock makes mistakes and shortcuts all the more likely to happen. Things need to be organic.

Marvel isn't Fox. They have shown the ability to adjust their timetables as the production demands.

 

[Metallo]

Indeed. Just take the time to get it right. Though Flash for 2013 is pretty feasible...or at least it could be.

I wish they would push forward with a Wonder Woman flick out of all of them.

A shame Joel Silvers grubby mitts have been on the Wonder Woman property all these years. There have been a few good people hired to work on that movie and he's failed at his job to shepherd it out of the gate.

 

[Kyle Rayner]

A better suggestion is to not have dates at all.

That's true, if they are trying to make 2 movies a year, well that sucks they just did GL. Where's the other movie?

 

[Kyle Rayner]

Yeah but Marvel hasn't exactly hit them out of the park. The problem with announcing dates ahead of time like that is that you corner yourself into an un-winnable position, you might be able to produce a good film, but the race against the clock makes mistakes and shortcuts all the more likely to happen. Things need to be organic.

There's always a race against the clock with those movies, but you have to admit they (Marvel) has one heck of marketing campaing. The people behind those campaings are worth their every dime that Marvel has invested in them.

 

[Godzilla2014]

avatar was INCREDIBLE in 3D. I suspect the reason why alice in wonderland did 1 BILLION was because the GA were DESPARATE for 3D afterwards, I know I was.

Actually, I don't remember if I saw it in 3D or not. Still, I remember looking at the visuals of the movie and thinking, "People are getting depressed because of this? What ******s!"

Avatar was good but overrated.

I found it to be extremely overrated. The movie is unfairly manipulative in the way it beats the audience to death with its environmental message, the Na'vi don't look like they came from the same place as the other animals on Pandora and are manipulatively designed to invoke sympathy from the audience upon sight, the Space Marines and the corporation are arbitrary cliched caricatures whose sole purpose is to be wrong and get progress the plot. I could go on, but to sum it up, I didn't buy into the Avatar hype beforehand, and I still didn't get it afterward.

No, they were fooled into thinking it was the same 3d as Avatar.

Pretty much.

 

[Cain]

You ever notice that the DCU stories that have the most appeal to casual comic fans are the ones where the characters are able to stand alone on their own and be the best they can be within them? like Sinestro Corps War which is just based around the GL universe or All-Star Superman and The Long Halloween (not a fan of that tale personally but just an example).

That should be a hint on how to approach cinematic adaptations. This trying to copy Marvel desperateness is why DC movies are in such bad shape in the first place. These characters are larger than life.

There are so many mythological allegories to Superman, Flash, Batman etc. that it's a disservice to not exploit them to their best of their abilities in their own individual franchises. This is better than instead of limiting the scope of their vision cause they have to fit in with a singular universe.

I mean I enjoyed Thor but I felt it didn't live up to it's potential either cause it had to be organic with Iron Man's movie universe. This is why Nolan's Batman works. You know they can't run to Superman or GL or anyone so it adds tension and gives the pictures weight because our hero really has to step up to the plate on all levels. You get to see why Batman REALLY is the best that we humans are capable of with a vision like that. It robs it of gravitas if you add capes to the picture.

Conversely you can't have Superman being threatened by Brainiac or having Mongul and Warworld being a huge threat and challenge for Supes if you know it's possible for the GLC to have his back. Robs the Superman story of it's individual scope right there.

I think they should focus on matching the best and most passionate talent to each individual property. Helping those properties become the best that they can become by crafting great stories for these characters.

It leaves the freedom of having space to do what they feel must be done to present the characters to their greatest ability to the masses instead of being limited by a shared universe and a forced and unfocused greedy vision of trying to force a JL movie since they want their own Avengers. It's ironic that they can't see that handling it with more care will mean A LOT MORE BANK in the long run.

The only thing DC movies should have in common is the logo. Aside from that they should serve as a way to show the true diversity of the storytelling available to the DC heroes. Gives an opportunity to present each character's project to great scale and great emotional resonance that way. Cause you have the audience completely engaged in the moment. As opposed to some of them thinking that Superman could conveniently fly in and help The Flash when a rogue has him in a bind. Even if it doesn't even end up happening.

Which will also greatly differ them from Marvel in the general audience consciousness and help them establish their own identity & brand by being leaders and not followers. Of course since WB doesn't have any vision at all I rather they not make any more DC properties into films outside of Batman but it goes without saying that it's not exactly rocket science to figure out a vision either.

 

[KalMart]

Look to comics for basic story/design ideas, and look to good filmmakers for cinematic/experience ideas.

 

[Godzilla2014]

You ever notice that the DCU stories that have the most appeal to casual comic fans are the ones where the characters are able to stand alone on their own and be the best they can be within them? like Sinestro Corps War which is just based around the GL universe or All-Star Superman and The Long Halloween (not a fan of that tale personally but just an example).

That should be a hint on how to approach cinematic adaptations. This trying to copy Marvel desperateness is why DC movies are in such bad shape in the first place. These characters are larger than life.

There are so many mythological allegories to Superman, Flash, Batman etc. that it's a disservice to not exploit them to their best of their abilities in their own individual franchises. This is better than instead of limiting the scope of their vision cause they have to fit in with a singular universe.

I mean I enjoyed Thor but I felt it didn't live up to it's potential either cause it had to be organic with Iron Man's movie universe. This is why Nolan's Batman works. You know they can't run to Superman or GL or anyone so it adds tension and gives the pictures weight because our hero really has to step up to the plate on all levels. You get to see why Batman REALLY is the best that we humans are capable of with a vision like that. It robs it of gravitas if you add capes to the picture.

Conversely you can't have Superman being threatened by Brainiac or having Mongul and Warworld being a huge threat and challenge for Supes if you know it's possible for the GLC to have his back. Robs the Superman story of it's individual scope right there.

I think they should focus on matching the best and most passionate talent to each individual property. Helping those properties become the best that they can become by crafting great stories for these characters.

It leaves the freedom of having space to do what they feel must be done to present the characters to their greatest ability to the masses instead of being limited by a shared universe and a forced and unfocused greedy vision of trying to force a JL movie since they want their own Avengers. It's ironic that they can't see that handling it with more care will mean A LOT MORE BANK in the long run.

The only thing DC movies should have in common is the logo. Aside from that they should serve as a way to show the true diversity of the storytelling available to the DC heroes. Gives an opportunity to present each character's project to great scale and great emotional resonance that way. Cause you have the audience completely engaged in the moment. As opposed to some of them thinking that Superman could conveniently fly in and help The Flash when a rogue has him in a bind. Even if it doesn't even end up happening.

Which will also greatly differ them from Marvel in the general audience consciousness and help them establish their own identity & brand by being leaders and not followers. Of course since WB doesn't have any vision at all I rather they not make any more DC properties into films outside of Batman but it goes without saying that it's not exactly rocket science to figure out a vision either.

Exactly. Generally, the characters that do best on film are the ones that do best in comics, because popular is popular. I don't really need every series incorporated into the same universe, or at least not the way Marvel does it. Marvel Studios' film adaptations kind of beat the audience over the head with the shared universe concept. The Stinger post-credits scene they add kind of harm the films' ability to stand on their own, because it feels like a TV show ending with, "And next week tune in to see The Avengers!"

Look to comics for story/design ideas, and look to good filmmakers for cinematic/experience ideas.

I agree.