What is DC Entertainment doing? What is their plan?

[Octoberist]

Green Lantern has always had a weird vibe at WB because I've never felt they confident in the project despite it's potential.

 

[KalMart]

Ah, the old "they're not doing it now, which means when they do it it'll be cool" theory.

The sad truth is, it takes an amount of trying to get it right. I don't think they learned anything. They botched Green Lantern and now they're going into "This is box office poison, let's not do it" mode. Because while you could come to the conclusion that the movie failed because word of mouth before launch was awful, and during the launch it wasn't much better, this execs find it easier to blame the character or genre.

I guess maybe once Avengers makes a gazillion dollars WB execs will "realize" there is "awakened interest" in the genre.

I think you misunderstood. If they strike gold again with another novel adaptation, and they're doing well with other non-comic movies...they may not need to pursue as many comic-movie franchises. Maybe they'll 'learn' that 'keeping up with the Marvels' won't be as much of an issue anymore, if the bottom line is that they're still the most profitable studio altogether. They may not have as many comic-movies out there...but they may have better and more successful films altogether.

Might not quell the jealousy of DC fans...but if they can still maintain a few tentpole franchises and keep nurturing their relationships with filmmakers like Scorcese, Eastwood, and Nolan...and still come out on top....so what?

 

[merced]

Well, if they strike gold again with another novel adaptation, and they're doing well with other non-comic movies...they may not need to pursue as many comic-movie franchises. Maybe they'll 'learn' that 'keeping up with the Marvels' won't be as much of an issue anymore, if the bottom line is that they're still the most profitable studio altogether.

Truth is super-hero films have not been WB's forte.

There is only so much effort they can put into this genre w/o big success before maybe realizing their limited resources are better spent elsewhere.

Hobbit has franchise potential.

Apparently Hangover does too. This film was cheap to make but it draws the young crowd in large numbers. I'm guessing we'll see Hangover2... and 3.

All eyes at WB are on MOS is my guess. Lawsuit aside this film will color how WB sees the super-hero genre for a while to come. If Nolan and Snyder deliver a just OK at the box office film I'm guessing WB won't do another super-hero film (besides Batman) for a good number of years to come.

IMO WB should license a few of it's DC characters out. Not the biggies but say Green Arrow. Let another studio have a 10 year window to do a film or two and see what happens.

WB did this in the past when it licesnsed the Superman film rights to Canon for a limited period of time. If WB isn't going to use these DC characters in films why not try a different tack and let other studios have a crack.

 

[ALP]

WB is a flop on their superheros besides Batman.

Green latern failed and god help us all if Superman is bad and doesn't make money, WB will probably never make another non-Batman superhero film for a very long time.

I truthfully can't imagine Martin Manhunter, Flash, Wonder Woman, or Aquaman raking in as much cash as Spidey, Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America. On the DC board no one is going to agree but I just think Marvels heros are more marketable overall.

 

[HighFivingMF]

I'm guessing we'll see Hangover2

That came out 2 months ago.

 

[jmc]

Green Lantern has always had a weird vibe at WB because I've never felt they confident in the project despite it's potential.

I believe, and still believe now, that of all the B-listers on the roster GL was the one that was tailor made for film. Retrospectively you are correct, there was a lack of confidence in the character, it resulted a mismanagement of the time needed to ensure quality and a complete **** up of the advertising.

 

[TheVileOne]

I still think it should've been released over the winter instead of summer.

 

[Karelia]

I still think it should've been released over the winter instead of summer.

I agree. This summer was way too crammed with blockbusters. Figures one would bomb.

 

[The Sage]

I still think it should've been released over the winter instead of summer.

In a rare moment, I agree with you.

 

[solidsnake86]

If they had known they couldnt finish the effects in time I agree that they shouldve pushed it back to December, but then they have sherlock holmes 2 coming out.

 

[KRIM]

It would've been a better release date, but in the overall scheme it would have made little difference. It was still a mediocre movie and people's responses would be the same.

 

[ALP]

Being mediocre did not stop the Transformers movies from making massive dollars.

 

[KRIM]

Being mediocre did not stop the Transformers movies from making massive dollars.

Evidently the mediocre titling is misplaced if it did so massive.










Also, I don't care if you're the beloved Fozzie -- your lower limbs won't be the only thing missing indefinitely if you talk bad about TF again.

 

[dnno1]

Truth is super-hero films have not been WB's forte.

There is only so much effort they can put into this genre w/o big success before maybe realizing their limited resources are better spent elsewhere.

Hobbit has franchise potential.

Apparently Hangover does too. This film was cheap to make but it draws the young crowd in large numbers. I'm guessing we'll see Hangover2... and 3.

All eyes at WB are on MOS is my guess. Lawsuit aside this film will color how WB sees the super-hero genre for a while to come. If Nolan and Snyder deliver a just OK at the box office film I'm guessing WB won't do another super-hero film (besides Batman) for a good number of years to come.

IMO WB should license a few of it's DC characters out. Not the biggies but say Green Arrow. Let another studio have a 10 year window to do a film or two and see what happens.

WB did this in the past when it licesnsed the Superman film rights to Canon for a limited period of time. If WB isn't going to use these DC characters in films why not try a different tack and let other studios have a crack.

Well, they certainly were good at making Superman and Batman films over the last 30 years or so.

 

[KalMart]

Being mediocre did not stop the Transformers movies from making massive dollars.

So by that reasoning, GL must've been much worse than mediocre.

 

[Kyle Rayner]

During the Emerald City Comic Convention in Seattle WA, I had the opportunity to ask Dan Jurgens a simple question: How are they going to incorporate other characters into the mainstream after GL and he said: "DC will be doing things different than Marvel."


That did not aliviate one bit of doubtfulness about how things where going to turn after GL. There is a huge DC fanbase out there, most of them will be for characters that pop culture has ridiculed and more than likely we will never see on screen. Marvel has a fanbase as huge as DC, the last 4 years they've been hitting some higher, some lower in theaters first on their on and now with Disney.

There's nothing to do with WB/DC, the reason why the superhero movies suck is simple, "too many chiefs not enough indians." The director is the captain of the ship, not the producer, nor executive producer, nor the guy incharge of WB.


If GL was going to be the first character done to compete with Marvel, then they could have done it during fall, winter or even spring. WB knew that Thor and Cap where about 3 months apart, like they did with the Hulk and Iron Man 2 it was stupid of them to push the character during the summer. Whomever was incharge of advertising GL should be FIRED. Waiting three months to start showing a character that has been in comics for almost 70 years to the mainstream should've been pushed at least a year or 2 earlier than expected.


In order to suceedd you learn from your past mistakes and move foward. Find the right director, the right script, have your adviser (comic book advisers) and do the best fooking movie that you can without bastardizing it. Give the characters rights to another company that is willing to do them before you (WB/DC) butcher someone's creation into pieces.

 

[KalMart]

Who knows...comic movies may not be the answer for them. At least DC fans will still have their comics, video games, and animation.

 

[chiefchirpa]

Animation and video games are certainly the best medium of DC character now. Let Marvel reign the current decade, but TV shows and video games are geared for young generations to learn DC characters. So DC can show movies 15 years away when the kids grow up and CGI will be much cheaper to make an epic GL, WW and Aquaman.


DC fans in the 70's, you may be out of luck.

 

[Airwings]

I truthfully can't imagine Martin Manhunter, Flash, Wonder Woman, or Aquaman raking in as much cash as Spidey, Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America. On the DC board no one is going to agree but I just think Marvels heros are more marketable overall.

That's just because we have experienced Marvel's successes while we haven't had one from DC/Warner (except the big-2). If we take away every one of the films and just compare comic books, there is no way Flash seems less suitable for live action than Spider-Man. It all depends on how the studio approach the character.
And Wonder Woman can be just as big as X-Men.

 

[The Morningstar]

DC should focus on smaller budgeted, more mature comic propeties. Not every comic movie needs to be a mega budget blockbuster superhero movies. They've got some amazing stuff in Vertigo. Gaiman's Sandman, Carey's Lucifer, Azzarello's 100 Bullets, Vaughn's Y the Last Man, Aaron's Scalped etc.

All great properties that have potential as films if taken seriously and adapted well.

 

[KalMart]

DC should focus on smaller budgeted, more mature comic propeties. Not every comic movie needs to be a mega budget blockbuster superhero movies. They've got some amazing stuff in Vertigo. Gaiman's Sandman, Carey's Lucifer, Azzarello's 100 Bullets, Vaughn's Y the Last Man, Aaron's Scalped etc.

All great properties that have potential as films if taken seriously and adapted well.

I liked that they did films of 300, Watchmen and V For Vendetta. It was nice to see adaptations that focused more on content than marketing and revenue.

 

[The Morningstar]

Exactly. They should do more movies like those. It's arguable whether those films are decent, but none the less, I think more focus should be on those kinds of properties. Like i said, not every comic movie has to be a big budget superhero adaptation.

 

[WildcatNC]

That's just because we have experienced Marvel's successes while we haven't had one from DC/Warner (except the big-2). If we take away every one of the films and just compare comic books, there is no way Flash seems less suitable for live action than Spider-Man. It all depends on how the studio approach the character.
And Wonder Woman can be just as big as X-Men.

I don't agree. Flash is an A lister comic wise and "could" be a successful movie. As could WW. No way that either will be as big as X-Men. They don't have as big of a comic fan base to start out with. There are few heavyweights that can compete with X-Men. The only ones WB has is Batman and MAYBE Superman if they can get it done.

I actually thought Snyder would have been a better choice for WW.

 

[merced]

Mojo has a list of all time opening weekends on it's site today.

In terms of super-hero films Marvel films have 15 in the top 100. DC has 3. And Green lantern barely made it coming in at #100.

The other DC films in the top 100 are Watchmen and The Dark Knight.

But with Marvel everything from both Hulk and FF films to all the X-Men films make the cut.

My bet is Captain America will become to 16th Marvel film to make the top 100. If it does it will push Green Lantern off the list giving WB just 2 films which made the cut.

 

[Airwings]

Marvel Comics has a bunch of successful superhero films: Spider-Man, X-Men, Iron Man, Thor
And the ones not that successful: Blade, Ghost Rider, Punisher, Daredevil, Elektra.
Hulk and Fantastic 4 are in-between these groups
If we look at these films, we can see that there have been made films out of many Marvel heroes, some of the most well-known ones in their comic library. Only Captain America is left, but his film will open just soon.

Then we look at DC Comic's library of superheroes: Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, The Flash, Green Lantern, Aquaman, Green Arrow, Hawkman, Plastic Man etc
Not many of them have actually been done live action (not counting TV shows)
I think it's stupid to suggest that Warner Bros should just lay their hands off these characters and do other DC work. Superhero fans around the world deserve to see that also WW and the rest get blockbuster treatments. It should not be only exclusive for Marvel to get things done, the superhero film genre should not be monopoly.

Green Lantern did not turn out to be the success the character deserved. But we have to swallow our pride and keep going, never losing hope. As I just said, not every Marvel character was a success either. With the failure of GL, there can be a success for other heroes. Nobody knows which one. Carter Hall and Oliver Queen could become the biggest, or just go the same way as Hal Jordan. But for every flop, there will also be at least one success. Trust me.
If we never try, we will never know. Even a commercial failure, is still an adaption. As long as there are chances for becoming a popular film, we have to make it. The film can become a flop, but it's a risk we all must take.

Some words of wisdom: "Better listen to the string that broke than never tighten a bow"