What is DC Entertainment doing? What is their plan?

[Godzilla2014]

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.

Agreed.

 

[KalMart]

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.

Again, ideally, sure...let the director direct, let the marketers market...everyone's happy.

But then, you look at something like Superman Returns...where Singer had almost complete creative carte-blanche...and he was allowed to take the biggest DC/WB superhero brand and make it into a soap-opera. Who's to say that someone in WB shouldn't have stepped in and demanded more action and excitement...the kinds of things that sell more toys and t-shirts...because they're the kind of things that people actually want to see in superhero movies? I mean, if one were actually looking for a soap-opera with Superman in it....SR would probably fill that bill pretty well. But if you were a WB exec, wouldn't you want it to be...well...a superhero movie?

And then there's Ang Lee's Hulk. Ugh....'nuff said.

Then again, they gave Nolan the same sort of autonomy...so it works well with some, not so well with others. So aside from idealistically wishing that directors would just have their way with no restrictions...I think the bigger issues lies in getting better 'film people' in the executive roles. People who can better recognize how a film can be good AS a film, and converge its needs along with the financial ones. There might be times where they will have to step in a bit and move things along, or re-stress that movie has to be fun if a director is taking it to melodramatically. There's just no one way to do it for every film....but you can at last hope you're making the right first step by hiring the right filmmaker....then do whatever you can to get on the same page early on. That's not to say that things won't still go sour once filming starts, though....and again, it's not always easy to tell someone they're wrong when they're expressing the concerns/needs of people who are paying for the film and the filmmaker's fee.

 

[jmc]

It's a coin toss folks, you can't have your cake and eat it too when it comes to directors.

 

[solidsnake86]

After Green Lantern I think they may be thinking of that justice league film again. I wouldnt be surprised if that becomes there top priority. We've heard nothing on the flash so I would take 2013 out of the running for that film because these projects take so long to put together.

 

[Cherry]

After Green Lantern I think they may be thinking of that justice league film again. I wouldnt be surprised if that becomes there top priority. We've heard nothing on the flash so I would take 2013 out of the running for that film because these projects take so long to put together.

I think so too. A Justice League film seems less risky than solo films for now. At least Justice League should have Bats and Supes to bring in the average viewer.

 

[MadVillainy]

I really hope a JL film isnt whats next on the radar

 

[HighFivingMF]

You know what's better than a good Justice League movie? Seven good solo movies.

 

[MadVillainy]

AMen HighFiving.

Yes I would like to see a JL movie down the line, but Im far more interested in seeing solo movies

 

[HighFivingMF]

I love Nolan's BatMovies. I love Green Lantern. I love Superman Returns. I'm almost positive that I'll love The Dark Knight Rises, Man of Steel and The Flash (If it gets to exist). I have faith in WB to make something at least I'll enjoy, but the idea of the characters in one movie doesn't seem remotely as interesting as a solo adventure for each character.

 

[Blader5489]

After Green Lantern I think they may be thinking of that justice league film again. I wouldnt be surprised if that becomes there top priority. We've heard nothing on the flash so I would take 2013 out of the running for that film because these projects take so long to put together.

Well when Robinov "announced" Justice League, he did say that Flash and Wonder Woman would follow after that. But with GL bombing, there's now zero chance of them pursuing other solo franchises before JL.

 

[Kyle Rayner]

I love Nolan's BatMovies. I love Green Lantern. I love Superman Returns. I'm almost positive that I'll love The Dark Knight Rises, Man of Steel and The Flash (If it gets to exist). I have faith in WB to make something at least I'll enjoy, but the idea of the characters in one movie doesn't seem remotely as interesting as a solo adventure for each character.

I agree with you on that, it seems almost impossible for them to make anything since they're constantly seeing dollars signs. But when the Flash gets a get go it would sure bright up my day.

 

[Kyle Rayner]

Well when Robinov "announced" Justice League, he did say that Flash and Wonder Woman would follow after that. But with GL bombing, there's now zero chance of them pursuing other solo franchises before JL.

What are you talking about the movie has been out for a week. Until the final numbers come out, GL is still shinning. DVDs are also part of those numbers so until the end of the year nobody knows what's going to happen. The movie had mixed reviews just like Thor and Xmen did, regardless it has a fanbase and if the fans are there, the money will be there and the sequel will be there too.

 

[TheIncredibleSk]

Lol Green Lantern is bombing bad bud. Aint no chance in hell for a sequel maybe a reboot in 5-10 years.

 

[MadVillainy]

lol @ "GL is still shining."

Man, it never was shining with critics or the audience

 

[TheIncredibleSk]

It's shining as well as a turd can shine.

 

[Kyle Rayner]

You guys laugh and make fun of me, numbers don't lie. We'll see whose laughing at the end. Incredible, you are wrong man LMAO!

 

[MadVillainy]

I honestly think this guy is a troll if he's saying "number don't lie" as a positive for GL. Ignore him and move on

 

[TheIncredibleSk]

You guys laugh and make fun of me, numbers don't lie. We'll see whose laughing at the end. Incredible, you are wrong man LMAO!

At first this post made me go

But then it made me go

 

[Iron_Stark]

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.

Maybe you can answer this since no one has been able to give me a straight answer, what exactly made Iron Man 2 an extended Avengers commercial? Can you list the scenes and time they spent promoting the Avengers?

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.

Black Widow barely had any screen time.

Its funny how people complain about Black Widow even though she debut in the Iron Man book back when he was still in Tales of Suspense, has appeared in more Iron Man books than most Marvel superhero characters as a villain and a partner, more than even War Machine for sure, and has been on more Avengers teams with Iron Man than even Thor and Captain America.

If anything, War Machine should never have been introduced in this one, which took away from Whiplash.

 

[Kyle Rayner]

Maybe you can answer this since no one has been able to give me a straight answer, what exactly made Iron Man 2 an extended Avengers commercial? Can you list the scenes and time they spent promoting the Avengers?


Cap, Thor, Nick Fury, Black Widow and War Machine. Is hard to tell the scenes, but time ranges from 1 minute to 2 hrs on screen. If the movie is about Iron Man then make it about Iron Man/War Machine since it was part of the first one and a villain. So far 2/3 not bad, Mickey Rourke could've gotten more time on screen. Black Widow was a waste time, she was there to look pretty, that could've also waited until the Avengers.

 

[Kyle Rayner]

At first this post made me go

But then it made me go

Awesome and Priceless!!!!! LMAO

 

[Iron_Stark]

Maybe you can answer this since no one has been able to give me a straight answer, what exactly made Iron Man 2 an extended Avengers commercial? Can you list the scenes and time they spent promoting the Avengers?


Cap, Thor, Nick Fury, Black Widow and War Machine. Is hard to tell the scenes, but time ranges from 1 minute to 2 hrs on screen. If the movie is about Iron Man then make it about Iron Man/War Machine since it was part of the first one and a villain. So far 2/3 not bad, Mickey Rourke could've gotten more time on screen. Black Widow was a waste time, she was there to look pretty, that could've also waited until the Avengers.

Lmao at this post. 1 minute to 2 hours? Wow way to break it down. Cap and Thor? Really? You're really bothered about a prop and an end credit scene? Smh.

And you honestly think BW was the reason Rouke got less screentime and it wasn't because they "Venomed" War Machine in this movie?

This whole post reeks of "girls are icky and don't belong in blockbuster movies" post.

 

[Captain Marvel]

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.

YOU get it, but that doesn't mean the general audience gets it, as most people aren't comic fans, much less patrons of this website or other sites like this one. So no, I don't begrudge them feeling the need to remind people what they're doing, as odds are most don't have a clue. For instance, remember all the media and all the hype surrounding the Lord of the Rings movies? How crystal clear the media made it that they'd be a trilogy? Well, there I was watching Fellowship of the Ring, and while I was walking out I overheard several people saying "That's it? But they never made it to the volcano or destroyed the ring!"

Some of the ties are heavy, sure, but this is the first batch of movies Pre-Avengers. They need people to be aware that they're all interconnected and leading up to something. Once Avengers comes out, and it's blazingly obvious what everything's been leading up to, I'm sure they'll throttle back on the tie-ins. I believe Feige or someone else said as much. The connections certainly won't be as thick with the lesser known characters, like the street level types, but for right now they need to make sure that the audience understands just what it is that they're trying to accomplish as nobody has ever done anything like this before.

 

[Kyle Rayner]

Lmao at this post. 1 minute to 2 hours? Wow way to break it down. Cap and Thor? Really? You're really bothered about a prop and an end credit scene? Smh.

And you honestly think BW was the reason Rouke got less screentime and it wasn't because they "Venomed" War Machine in this movie?

This whole post reeks of "girls are icky and don't belong in blockbuster movies" post.

Maybe you can answer this since no one has been able to give me a straight answer, what exactly made Iron Man 2 an extended Avengers commercial? Can you list the scenes and time they spent promoting the Avengers? This is YOUR quote.


Here's how the advertising worked; Cap shield IM1 & IM2, Thor's Hammer IM2, Widow, and Fury. Just because is not on tv showing a product, it doesnt mean that is not advertising. They advertise the movie prior to filming thru another film. Nothing wrong with that, however, if the movie is about one character then that's what it should be, when you have multiple characters (regardless if they came from that source) it complicates the story. IM1 had Stark, Potts, Stane and Rhodes. IM2 had Stark, Potts, Rhodes, Hammer, Dynamo, Hogan, Widow, Fury and the Agent. There was too much going on and most people will tell you that it was a good movie but the story was lost.


Black Widow and Fury version are from the Ultimates, if so then they should've appear in Captain America and the Avengers not Iron Man. Widow and Fury have to do with espionage and military Cap and the Avengers are that precisely. Iron Man is all about technology and military. Some character should've just stayed in the background. I like Black Widow, I like to see women kick ass, but IM2 was an adverstising vehicle for the Avengers like it or not.

 

[Kyle Rayner]

I honestly think this guy is a troll if he's saying "number don't lie" as a positive for GL. Ignore him and move on

You don't have to agree with me, but look at the facts. Most of the negative opinion are from people who didn't like the film, some loved the film. It's only been a week you just have to wait and see.

And yes I'm a troll!