What is DC Entertainment doing? What is their plan?

[The Sage]

Let's get away from the Marvel vs DC debates..

 

[Docker2.0]

That's kinda pointless if you ask me. Retaining 'some' control is only going to lead to a clashing of heads.

Well Marvel did it with Blade, a characte noone heard of, and now is a household name with 3 movies, and anime movie/tv series and a live action tv series. Can Wonder Woman(who's part of DC's trinity) say the same? And that's not a insult to DC/WB but the characters that they will probably never use, they could probably lease out. And when I say some control, I mean the ability to use the character when they want to, like Marvel can't use Spidey for an Avengers movie. Make sense?

 

[Crockett]

Well Marvel did it with Blade, a characte noone heard of, and now is a household name with 3 movies, and anime movie/tv series and a live action tv series. Can Wonder Woman(who's part of DC's trinity) say the same? And that's not a insult to DC/WB but the characters that they will probably never use, they could probably lease out. And when I say some control, I mean the ability to use the character when they want to, like Marvel can't use Spidey for an Avengers movie. Make sense?

I really don't see the point in that. WB, a movie studio entirely owns DC Comics. Marvel wasn't in the same position back when Blade was released, they were an comic book company with movies getting released by different movie studios because they had to give movie rights to a few of their characters in order to start their movie studio where they have control on the characters being put on screen. If it ever happens that WB will not do another superhero movie, it will sucks for us fans but there's nothing we can do about it.

 

[Docker2.0]

WB seems to only be interested in doing Batman and Superman. I say le New Line(which is a part of WB)do something like a Plastic Man movie because WB doesn't have the set to do one. Well, they can't focus all of their money into superhero movies because that's not their only priority unlike Marvel which at this time can only focus on. Now that Marvel has Disney backing them up....................I don't see Marvel stopping any time soon.

 

[jmc]

Well Marvel did it with Blade, a characte noone heard of, and now is a household name with 3 movies, and anime movie/tv series and a live action tv series. Can Wonder Woman(who's part of DC's trinity) say the same? And that's not a insult to DC/WB but the characters that they will probably never use, they could probably lease out. And when I say some control, I mean the ability to use the character when they want to, like Marvel can't use Spidey for an Avengers movie. Make sense?

Marvel leased the character out but would of have no control over the direction, just as they don't have control over Spiderman, Xmen and F4 until they get the rights back. If WB leases one of their characters to another studios they won't be able retain any control of the direction it takes, but WB aren't going to allow that to happen, ever.

 

[Crockett]

Well, New Line did released A History of Violence and that was before they became a part of WB so I think from comics from DC that aren't superhero is ok, doing a superhero movie that's a part of the DC universe, I'm not sure, if there's any coming out WB will be the one behind it.

 

[Docker2.0]

Well, New Line did released A History of Violence and that was before they became a part of WB so I think from comics from DC that aren't superhero is ok, doing a superhero movie that's a part of the DC universe, I'm not sure, if there's any coming out WB will be the one behind it.

Well I'm just saying that should be an option. There's no way they can make movies out of all their characters, nor would they probably be interested in doing so, hence like 20 Batman and Superman movies. I say make a deal similiar to the one Marvel had with Paramount. Distribute the movie and whatever else they did. It would make more sense.

 

[Crockett]

Well I'm just saying that should be an option. There's no way they can make movies out of all their characters, nor would they probably be interested in doing so, hence like 20 Batman and Superman movies. I say make a deal similiar to the one Marvel had with Paramount. Distribute the movie and whatever else they did. It would make more sense.

Marvel's deal with Paramount is collaborating on making comic book movies but that Paramount doesn't own the characters that are put out on screen. Even if New Line is doing a DC superhero movie they still need to go to WB and ask if it's ok, but WB's good movie studio but there's just problems when it comes to DC superhero movies. They do want to focus more on the DC universe just like what Disney/Marvel is doing right now but it's more important taking time to get things right instead of putting out movies for the sake of it.

 

[Docker2.0]

Marvel's deal with Paramount is collaborating on making comic book movies but that Paramount doesn't own the characters that are put out on screen. Even if New Line is doing a DC superhero movie they still need to go to WB and ask if it's ok, but WB's good movie studio but there's just problems when it comes to DC superhero movies. They do want to focus more on the DC universe just like what Disney/Marvel is doing right now but it's more important taking time to get things right instead of putting out movies for the sake of it.

Are you serious?! My gawd! How long have I heard that? Other than Nolan's Batman, nothing they have done with their DC characters has been that great. I'm not counting their graphic novels, only counting Catwoman, Jonah Hex, and GL are only examples. Do I think WB want to succeed? Of course! I actually Johns was the perfect guy for it and to this day, I have no clue how he allowed it to happen but I have an idea. I know Campbell is known for doing and being done with the franchise but his really quick announcement of being done with GL before it even came out made me think that the WB execs we way more involved than they should have been and it could also be the reason John's hands were tied. Could I be wrong? I could be but I honestly doubt it. I've said it before, Nolan did a fantastic job with Batman but I honestly think he's the worst thing that could have happend to DCE.

 

[Crockett]

I was skeptic of Green Lantern and yes, I think WB had a hand in too many of the decision together that goes in that movie which is unfortunate. WB doesn't really have a good grasp on the DC characters and there's where DCE should steps in but it has been a rocky start for them. I'm only hoping they'll learn from their mistakes the next time they're doing a DC superhero movie that's not Batman or Superman, that's the only thing we can do right now.

 

[jmc]

WB have got more on their minds than superheroes, lets not forget that, people in here act like WB sole interest is in guys with capes, nothing could be further from the truth. They aren't a superhero studio like Marvel, when the day comes that superheroes are no longer a bankable commodity WB will still be going strong.

I was skeptic of Green Lantern and yes, I think WB had a hand in too many of the decision together that goes in that movie which is unfortunate. WB doesn't really have a good grasp on the DC characters and there's where DCE should steps in but it has been a rocky start for them. I'm only hoping they'll learn from their mistakes the next time they're doing a DC superhero movie that's not Batman or Superman, that's the only thing we can do right now.

You've gotta wonder if DCE is anything more than just a glorified middle man at this stage.

 

[Crockett]

Right now, with the news of developing a series on Deadman that I think TV is where DCE is focusing on with trying to strengthen the brand of DC comics characters. That's what I'm hoping the Green Lantern cartoon series will do also and could've been with Wonder Woman. I'll say focus on that a few years and try to blossom up the DC brand there before tackling on a feature film.

 

[Docker2.0]

WB have got more on their minds than superheroes, lets not forget that, people in here act like WB sole interest is in guys with capes, nothing could be further from the truth. They aren't a superhero studio like Marvel, when the day comes that superheroes are no longer a bankable commodity WB will still be going strong.
You've gotta wonder if DCE is anything more than just a glorified middle man at this stage.

I just said that.

 

[Docker2.0]

I was skeptic of Green Lantern and yes, I think WB had a hand in too many of the decision together that goes in that movie which is unfortunate. WB doesn't really have a good grasp on the DC characters and there's where DCE should steps in but it has been a rocky start for them. I'm only hoping they'll learn from their mistakes the next time they're doing a DC superhero movie that's not Batman or Superman, that's the only thing we can do right now.

I actually think DCE hands are tied. I think they are not really allowed to speak but so much. Look at Batman.................Nolan does what he wants with no outside voice whatsoever or he walks. Look at Superman............Zach is making it but Nolan is standing in the background but you hear nothing from DCE. I think the only project they had any say so in was GL and I believe it was very limited. Johns has handled almost every event in the DC universe recently and he really does have a stake in all of this but you can see when he goes to various comic cons, he clearly has limited control over what he can say and do.

PS- sorry about the previous posts but I seem to miss a letter or two in some of my words which I don't understand how that keeps happening when I proofread it and it seems fine.

 

[The Sage]

WB have got more on their minds than superheroes, lets not forget that, people in here act like WB sole interest is in guys with capes, nothing could be further from the truth. They aren't a superhero studio like Marvel, when the day comes that superheroes are no longer a bankable commodity WB will still be going strong.

Exactly. Superhero films are just one of the many sources of income at their use, not the main one.

 

[chiefchirpa]

WB have got more on their minds than superheroes, lets not forget that, people in here act like WB sole interest is in guys with capes, nothing could be further from the truth. They aren't a superhero studio like Marvel, when the day comes that superheroes are no longer a bankable commodity WB will still be going strong.

You've gotta wonder if DCE is anything more than just a glorified middle man at this stage.

Oh please... the correct analog of Warner Brothers is Disney not Marvel Studios.

Just like WB, Disney also got more on their minds than just superheroes and Marvel's job (as a sub to Disney) is solely to churn out superhero or fantasy world out of their libraries. Now I don't know if DC is going to properly backup WB with their literary sources, but Marvel only backs up Disney based on their stuff. If the comic book movie crashed, experienced Marvel Studios might still get contracted to do original fantasy movies optioned by the "overseer", Disney. And of course, Disney will still go strong.

To sum up, remember the right analogues:
WB == Disney
Legendary Pictures/New Line/WB production studio == Marvel Studios/Touchstone
DC Comics == Marvel Comics

 

[jmc]

Oh please... the correct analog of Warner Brothers is Disney not Marvel Studios.

Just like WB, Disney also got more on their minds than just superheroes and Marvel's job (as a sub to Disney) is solely to churn out superhero or fantasy world out of their libraries. Now I don't know if DC is going to properly backup WB with their literary sources, but Marvel only backs up Disney based on their stuff. If the comic book movie crashed, experienced Marvel Studios might still get contracted to do original fantasy movies optioned by the ''overseer'', Disney. And of course, Disney will still go strong.

To sum up, remember the right analogues:
WB == Disney
Legendary Pictures/New Line/WB production studio == Marvel Studios/Touchstone
DC Comics == Marvel Comics

Um, Disney's acquisition of Marvel is only a recent occurrence and are still an independent studio in their own right, their relationship to Disney is roughly on par with that of Pixar. So no, WB and Marvel Studios are analogous.

 

[chiefchirpa]

Um, Disney's acquisition of Marvel is only a recent occurrence and are still an independent studio in their own right, their relationship to Disney is roughly on par with that of Pixar. So no, WB and Marvel Studios are analogous.

LOL, "independent studio"?

Disney wholly own Marvel and all its operations, just like WB own DC now. Marvel Studio is just one of Disney movie studios like Touchstone. There's no such thing as a "relationship". In dire times, Disney is telling what Marvel should do ("keep making superhero movies or you have little value for us") or not ("dang CBM crash. Cease operation, here I'll give you Tron 5"). Do you think Marvel will belly up if CBM goes to bust? No it's already owned by Disney. If Disney bellies up, Marvel Studio then bellies up.

 

[jmc]

Wow, I don't know how to respond to that other than you've got a really bizarre interpretation of how things currently are. Disney owns Marvel but the running of Marvel Studios is at this point separate to Disney. That may change in the future but as of now Disney have no reason to interfere because Marvel's results are for the most part solid, just as Disney stays the hell out of Pixar's affairs despite it too being under the Disney banner. And yes I do think Marvel Studios will struggle when superheroes eventually wear out their welcome on the silver screen, at best they'll be limited to a feature film every few years as opposed to one or two films every year.

 

[chiefchirpa]

Wow, I don't know how to respond to that other than you've got a really bizarre interpretation of how things currently are. Disney owns Marvel but the running of Marvel Studios is at this point separate to Disney. That may change in the future but as of now Disney have no reason to interfere because Marvel's results are for the most part solid, just as Disney stays the hell out of Pixar's affairs despite it too being under the Disney banner. And yes I do think Marvel Studios will struggle when superheroes eventually wear out their welcome on the silver screen, at best they'll be limited to a feature film every few years as opposed to one or two films every year.

Do you read yesterday news about firing of Marvel studios marketing team? No?

Here:
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2011/08/mickey_mouse_pink_slips_marvel.php

http://geektyrant.com/news/2011/8/2...rvels-marketing-team-what-does-this-mean.html

http://www.newsarama.com/film/disney-fires-marvel-marketing-110823.html

http://jedimouseketeer.blogspot.com/2011/08/disney-axes-marvels-marketing.html



Now, can you still say Marvel Studio "independent"?

Marvel Studios is just an offshoot of Marvel comic business, and Disney has bought it whole from mainstay comic business to the offshoot movie business. Marvel is Disney's comic publishing/movie/toy making arm and that stays the way it is. Creatively they maybe independent but business process wise, like the news I've given above, they're not.

Need diagrams? ----> means "owned"

Disney -----> (Marvel Studios | Marvel Comics)
// Marvel carries its own CBM film studios

WB -----> (DC Comics | DC Direct)
// DC doesn't have it's own movie studio business, but on the other hand has toy making entity in DC Direct

If say there's a superhero movie crash, Marvel Studios would get turned into a non-superhero movie studio by Disney or at worst case, temporarily disbanded. Marvel itself? Still survives because it surely won't belly down by itself anymore when it's already 100% owned by Disney.

 

[Docker2.0]

Oh please... the correct analog of Warner Brothers is Disney not Marvel Studios.

Just like WB, Disney also got more on their minds than just superheroes and Marvel's job (as a sub to Disney) is solely to churn out superhero or fantasy world out of their libraries. Now I don't know if DC is going to properly backup WB with their literary sources, but Marvel only backs up Disney based on their stuff. If the comic book movie crashed, experienced Marvel Studios might still get contracted to do original fantasy movies optioned by the "overseer", Disney. And of course, Disney will still go strong.

To sum up, remember the right analogues:
WB == Disney
Legendary Pictures/New Line/WB production studio == Marvel Studios/Touchstone
DC Comics == Marvel Comics

Bravo! Great analogy! Couldn't have said it better myself! People keep saying that WB's first thing is not superheroes but it is DCE's or should be anyway. Under DCE they have released around 4 flicks and 2 of them have only done well. That's not a good percentage so that "quality over quantity" excuse is just that: an excuse that has been used for years! The fact of the matter is DCE has no idea what to do with it's characters, not so much because of DCE but because the WB continues to interfer and control everything they put out, unless Nolan is involved that is.

 

[TheDragonator]

And it's not like DC doesn't have awesome B-List heroes, either. Blue Beetle, Booster Gold, Captain Marvel and Green Arrow, just to start!

DC is trying to mimic Marvel's plan, which is awesome, but DC can't just throw a hero like Green Lantern in, throw in a bunch of geeky references and expect it to work just like that. References like that are cool, but they should be the extra icing on the cake, not the batter.

Craft a good story first, THEN work in that stuff. Not to mention, almost all of Marvel Studios films had a lower budget than Green Lantern (Except for Iron Man 2 and Avengers, which is said to cost at least more than Iron Man 2), but the reason the films were so successful was because of the stories, and not just the special effects and geeky moments.

Isolating the characters doesn't help this either. Batman is cool, and Superman is cool. But it'd be even cooler if they fought side by side. You can't just separate these characters because it's easier to manage.

Hell, even freaking Smallville, well known for straying from the source material, got this concept.

I just want to someday see the DC equivalent of this picture:

But WB keeps holding DC back.

Hell, I did a bit of research, and it turns out Schumacher didn't originally intend to make the Batman films campy, he wanted to make a Batman: Year One movie, but WB said no.

 

[WildcatNC]

I think DC seems a LONG way away from that unfortunately.

 

[akfj]

Bravo! Great analogy! Couldn't have said it better myself! People keep saying that WB's first thing is not superheroes but it is DCE's or should be anyway. Under DCE they have released around 4 flicks and 2 of them have only done well. That's not a good percentage so that "quality over quantity" excuse is just that: an excuse that has been used for years! The fact of the matter is DCE has no idea what to do with it's characters, not so much because of DCE but because the WB continues to interfer and control everything they put out, unless Nolan is involved that is.

DC Entertainment is not a film studio. That has become evident and I don't know how many times it needs to be said. I'm not sure anyone even knows what the hell it is. According the their official press release their job is to "fully realize the power and value of the DC Comics brand and characters across all media and platforms" and "strategically [integrate] the DC Comics business, brand and characters deeply into Warner Bros. Entertainment and all its content and distribution businesses".

 

[Tobias]

Why not create a new semi-independent studio to WB.

It would be allowed to make any DC character into a film. Except for Batman which WB probably wants to hang on to.

WB would invest upfront cash to get the studio rolling but the studio would have to survive on it's own ultimately. Turn a profit without cash from WB. It also would have to raise cash for it's film projects.

This is how Marvel Studios started. Like Marvel it's focus would be the DC staple of characters and unlike DCE it would be a film studio.