What is DC Entertainment doing? What is their plan?

[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.

I want to hear Rocketman's response to this

 

[dcfan4life]

I think DC's next movie should be The Teen titans,Robin is a character everyone knows,with the right director.I think it would work.Also they could do the Justice league without Batman & Superman,have Green Arrow,Martian Manhunter,Aquaman-Flash,Black Canary & since Wonder Woman can't even stand on its own for a sitcom,let her be part of the team,and they could mention Superman & Batman in the movie.Then when these movies succeed they can try Green Lantern 2,Captain Marvel & Plastic Man

 

[Saitou Hajime]

So what, Nolan gets to do his own thing, but Warner Bros micromanages everything else?

BB's success gave Nolan the leverage he needed to take the franchise by the balls and freeze out WB, I reckon.

 

[Kyle Rayner]

BB's success gave Nolan the leverage he needed to take the franchise by the balls and freeze out WB, I reckon.

LMAO!!! Well said sir!

 

[Kyle Rayner]

BB's success gave Nolan the leverage he needed to take the franchise by the balls and freeze out WB, I reckon.

It's true someone with Nolan's vision has to teach WB to not mendle with their project. Micromanaging does not work, if anything pisses people off. In this case not all the money in the world can make fans like a movie that executes poorly.

 

[SoulManX]

The DCAU laid a perfect blueprint for the movie universe

 

[chamber-music]

Nolan has had a very successful partnership with WB and they respect him. People like Nolan, Spielberg, James Cameron and Scorsese have almost free reign with studios because they are well respected.

If your a director who studios think are soft they will bully you into being micromanaged

 

[SoulManX]

Nolan has had a very successful partnership with WB and they respect him. People like Nolan, Spielberg, James Cameron and Scorsese have almost free reign with studios because they are well respected.

If your a director who studios think are soft they will bully you into being micromanaged

And allowed them to screw up a lil. The studios back then allowed for those dreamers to bring their vision to life with little suit interference.

 

[chamber-music]

I saw a interview with John Hurt were he was talking about movies and he said a studio exec asked him "who is his movie for?" and he replyed "anyone who wants to see it"

He said Movie execs see films in demographics and markets they are not intrested in just telling a good story.

 

[KalMart]

I saw a interview with John Hurt were he was talking about movies and he said a studio exec asked him "who is his movie for?" and he replyed "anyone who wants to see it"

He said Movie execs see films in demographics and markets they are not intrested in just telling a good story.

Well, they are the ones who put up/raise the money to make the movies....and it ain't a charity.

 

[Godzilla2014]

I disagree. Marvel Studios beats the audience over the head with the interconnected nature of their universe. The stingers after the credits essentially amount to an ad for the next film, one that often does not involve the character the movie is about. It harms the film's ability to stand on its own.

The point of the end of the credits is to let fans know that they are doing the next movie, it didn't matter that Nick Fury showed up for a later Nick Fury movie, he showed up and you knew that Marvel meant business. The next movie was the Incredible Hulk, there was two references, one to Iron Man and the other to Captain America. Cap wasn't the next movie, it was Iron Man 2, Thor, Cap followed to the Avengers. The end of the film was not meant that the character was going to be next.

Still, my point stands. When I see an Iron Man film, I am not here to see Thor. It beats the audience over the head with "We have a Marvel Cinematic Universe here!" Iron Man 2 especially suffered from feeling like an extended ad for the upcoming Avengers movie. We get it, they all live in the same universe. Quit hitting me over the head with it like a sledgehammer.

Nolan has had a very successful partnership with WB and they respect him. People like Nolan, Spielberg, James Cameron and Scorsese have almost free reign with studios because they are well respected.

If your a director who studios think are soft they will bully you into being micromanaged

Agreed.

 

[KalMart]

Warner Bros. still pushing ahead with Green Lantern Sequel

Warner Bros. are still going to produce and fund a sequel to 2011's Green Lantern despite a massive negative reaction and are already looking at Director's to replace Martin Campbell.

I have a source who I would say is "close" to Warner Bros. and he slips me little bits here and there and is always spot on. Well he slipped me another little thing here that is interesting.
"Despite the negative critical reaction and fan boy reaction, Warner Bros. are concerned about the Box Office numbers but believe it will make $400million which is less than the $550million they projected. But they are still pressing ahead and Martin Campbell left because of "differing agreements" with some of the Producers. Warner Bros. are looking at Matt Reeves to reinvigorate the franchise with the sequel as Director. The first film was always there to set up Sinestro as the villain in the sequel which will no doubt prove to be 100 times better from what I'm hearing, I believe at the moment it's called "Green Lantern: Rise of Fear" but don't quote me on that."
I replied asking him about the Martin Campbell differing agreements bit and he said that it was creative differences in the finished product. He said he heard rumours that Campbell stopped putting his input into the final product at the end of May after "serious rows". This is why the film was so badly put together.

Also regarding the sequel (or Green Lantern: Rise of Fear), he said Warner Bros. want Matt Reeves to direct it who has experience with filming aliens in Cloverfield.

I assure you this is genuine and my source is definitely "in the know". What do you make of this?

I don't know if this is true or not. If so, it would explain a lot and has me concerned. If Campbell's work was ruined because of WB, what's to stop from them doing the same to Reeves, or any director of future DC Comics adaptations?

So what, Nolan gets to do his own thing, but Warner Bros micromanages everything else?

Ugh, I hope they learned their lesson.

Aaaa-hahaha...

"Rise Of Fear"!!!!


FEAR, FEAR, FEAR, FEAR, FEAR...!!!

 

[Kyle Rayner]

The DCAU laid a perfect blueprint for the movie universe

What perfect blue print? There's hasn't been any talks about any other DC properties. It's been already a week since GL came out and no one from DC has said anything yet for further plans.

 

[Kyle Rayner]

Still, my point stands. When I see an Iron Man film, I am not here to see Thor. It beats the audience over the head with "We have a Marvel Cinematic Universe here!" Iron Man 2 especially suffered from feeling like an extended ad for the upcoming Avengers movie. We get it, they all live in the same universe. Quit hitting me over the head with it like a sledgehammer.



LMAO, yeah you are right with Iron Man 2. I think the they were trying to hard with placing all the characters in that movie, also the story was all over the place. I would've loved to see more Mickey Rourke battling out with RDJ and less Black Widow.

 

[HighFivingMF]

The DCAU laid a perfect blueprint for the movie universe

Only giving attention to Superman and Batman for the first several years before putting everyone, with Superman and Batman as the leaders, a team cartoon?

 

[SoulManX]

What perfect blue print? There's hasn't been any talks about any other DC properties. It's been already a week since GL came out and no one from DC has said anything yet for further plans.

WB HAS NO FAITH IN ITS PRODUCT! Poor marketing and poor story hurt GL they could have just used First Flight as there blueprint. The animation dept writer should be the script supervisors over the screenwriters.

 

[SoulManX]

Only giving attention to Superman and Batman for the first several years before putting everyone, with Superman and Batman as the leaders, a team cartoon?

I meant all of the DCUA movies and TAS

 

[Godzilla2014]

Still, my point stands. When I see an Iron Man film, I am not here to see Thor. It beats the audience over the head with "We have a Marvel Cinematic Universe here!" Iron Man 2 especially suffered from feeling like an extended ad for the upcoming Avengers movie. We get it, they all live in the same universe. Quit hitting me over the head with it like a sledgehammer.

LMAO, yeah you are right with Iron Man 2. I think the they were trying to hard with placing all the characters in that movie, also the story was all over the place. I would've loved to see more Mickey Rourke battling out with RDJ and less Black Widow.

Agreed.

 

[chamber-music]

Well, they are the ones who put up/raise the money to make the movies....and it ain't a charity.

I never said it was but if your making a movie focused on ticking off some sort of checklist instead on focusing on making the best movie you could make thats entertaining you can't be suprised if it fails.

When Spielberg was creating Jurassic Park, ET, Jaws, Indiana Jones he wasn't saying to his crew this movie must appeal to 16 -30 males and females, must include five differnent ethnic minorities to please the overseas markets ect

His mind was set on telling entertaining stories instead of filling out some business style checklist.

 

[KalMart]

I never said it was but if your making a movie focused on ticking off some sort of checklist instead on focusing on making the best movie you could make thats entertaining you can't be suprised if it fails.

See...any of these big-time franchise movies are exactly that to the execs...that's what their job is. It all depends on whether they hire a good filmmaker and trust their talent/vision to make it as good of a movie as it can be. But it's also up to the director to have a good enough handle on things to work efficiently, too....as well as address the objective of the people that hired him.

When Spielberg was creating Jurassic Park, ET, Jaws, Indiana Jones he wasn't saying to his crew this movie must appeal to 16 -30 males and females, must include five differnent ethnic minorities to please the overseas markets ect

His mind was set on telling entertaining stories instead of filling out some business style checklist.

Jaws is an isolated case of things going terribly wrong, technically, and going way over budget/schedule, and Spielberg's job hanging by a thread every second....but it somehow became a good movie. And once it became one of the biggest money-makers in history....he didn't have to answer to anyone when it came to Raiders, ET, Jurassic Park, etc. When a director has that kind of power, THEN a studio wants to release their picture no matter what. But if you're not like him, then the execs' financial/demographic concerns are just as relevant as the filmmaker's artistic ones, and you just hope that they can all get on the same page and keep moving in a positive direction.

A director may have a great idea for, say, a GL movie that's dark and violent...it may be a great story overall, but it'd get an R rating and have a lot of material not suitable for kids under 13-16. A studio's not going to want that no matter how good of a story it may be in and of itself...because they need the franchise to appeal to younger kids for merchandising, etc.. That's what they're putting the money up for. That's not top say a GL movie that appeals to younger kids as well as older ones isn't possible, it's up to then to hire a director/storyteller who will.

As far as treating the film as a checklist and interfering/micromanaging...it's always going to happen on some movies. When big money is involved, it's going to happen. So sometimes the filmmaker can only do their job as well as they can and deliver it to them 'the way they want it', and let the execs take the blame if it fails. For moviegoers, they're just movies...there's always another movie around the corner. Obviously, for a comic fan, it can hurt if their favorite character gets the shaft...but if you want them in movies, that's the risk that they take.

 

[Airwings]

Hollywood has become too much business and too little artistic. That's why films from other countries are more quality in terms of actual story-telling and not just a "product" released to the masses.
But soon H-wood will pay the price and everything they built up over the years will just fall. People will turn their back on the american studios, and look for better films. Then Hollywood must go back to how things were done before, when creativity played a bigger part in film-making.

 

[GhostPoet]

Still, my point stands. When I see an Iron Man film, I am not here to see Thor. It beats the audience over the head with "We have a Marvel Cinematic Universe here!" Iron Man 2 especially suffered from feeling like an extended ad for the upcoming Avengers movie. We get it, they all live in the same universe. Quit hitting me over the head with it like a sledgehammer.



LMAO, yeah you are right with Iron Man 2. I think the they were trying to hard with placing all the characters in that movie, also the story was all over the place. I would've loved to see more Mickey Rourke battling out with RDJ and less Black Widow.

Really? I didn't get the feeling it was an ad at all for the Avengers. Not even sure how you got that.

 

[KalMart]

Hopllywood has become too much business and too little artistic. That's why films from other countries are more quality in terms of actual story-telling and not just a "product" released to the masses.
But soon H-wood will pay the price and everything they built up over the years will just fall. People will turn their back to the american studios to look for better films. Then Hollywood must go back to how things were done before, when creativity played a bigger part in film-making.

They've always been about business...especially with movies that cost a lot to make. You just get lucky sometimes when some of then happen to really excel on an artistic level as well.

But back in the 50's-60's, as TV started to become big, Hollywood lost a lot of it's top spot on the entertainment totem pole, and it was the more artistic/avante-garde films that became the forerunners in popular cinema, along with more anti-hero-themed films like Bonnie & Clyde. It's one of the contributing factors that made a lot of people consider the 70's the greatest era in American filmmaking...because pictures were more artistically-driven and found their 'stride' in the 70's.

Who knows, we may get some sort of 'restart' some time soon as well....but it'll mean that big-time blockbusters like POTC and all Superhero movies may be the first to get their walking papers. Then again...as long as some movie franchise can still pull in over $600M worldwide, everybody will still want to make them. If we go through, say, a five-year period where no movie...no POTC, or Spidey, or Avatar, or Batman, or anything else makes more than $300M worldwide and they all cost over $200M to make...then the studios may start to rethink things. But in the meantime, who cares if the studios keep going after the big one with mega-franchises, as long as we still get movies like "Million Dollar Baby", or "Social Network", and overseas films like "the Lives Of Others"? If mega-franchises start to block movies like those from coming out...THEN there's a problem.

 

[chamber-music]

I'm not saying it has to be all a directors artistic vision and non-commericial. Its not an elitist. I think the business side of things should really be focused on the marketing as if a movie looks good and is sold to the audience well they usually go and see it. More often than not its the good quality movies that are successful in the
long run.

Directors have as much at stake as studios. If they put out a bad movie that flops it could end their career.

I don't know where this think came from were summer movies have to be dumb and not make sense or have character development or simply a good story in general.

Films like Spider-Man 2, Inception, The Matrix ect show you can have big action and a storyline. Its not an either or situation.

GL or the majority of Superhero movies don't need to be dark in my opinion. Dark movies work for some superheroes as the lend to those type of charaters but not all.

I remember toys and cartoons for films like Alien, Robocop, Terminator, Rambo and Conan none of which were kids movies. Most dark things go over kids heads anyway. I watched tons of movies that I look at now and notice how inappropriate somethings were.

The Dark Knight or Batman 89 I don't think would be appropriate for a child under the age of ten but I'm sure many of kids under that have seen and loved those movies.

 

[Lord]

I watched and loved Spidewr-man 2 when it came out and i was only 9 or 10 years old when it came out