What is DC Entertainment doing? What is their plan?

[Raiden]

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.

Marvel is now owned by Disney, so if superhero movies are no longer bankable (which I doubt it'll happen anytime soon), they can still focus on other areas like comics, TV shows, animated series, etc. Marvel's fortune is not rested solely on those big screen movies. WB is in the same position, except that unlike Marvel, they have no say when it comes to the DC superhero movies that WB is making, and the one movie where they actually get to participate as the DC Entertainment, the movie failed (GL).

And like you said, WB's mind isn't really on making superheroes, so why not (as Docker said), license it out to ther studios who will be willing to spend the money & resources to make them? Why hold on to them if they have no plan to make any of them except for the countless Superman and Batman movies that they've already made?

 

[jmc]

I was referring to MARVEL STUDIOS, the film division of the company not the company itself.

 

[Raiden]

I was referring to MARVEL STUDIOS, the film division of the company not the company itself.

Isn't Marvel Studios part of Marvel, which itself is owned by Disney? It doesn't invalidate what I said about Marvel and its relationship with Disney. Disney lets Marvel/Marvel Studios operate independently when it comes to making their creative decisions, like Pixar does. But in terms of business side these two companies are integrated. If Marvel doesn't turn in a nice profit in the movie business, Disney will still keep them because Marvel has alot of other areas to make money, and they didn't spend 4 billion dollar on the company just for their movies alone. How about theme parks? Merchandises? Licensing? There are so many ways Disney can make money off of Marvel.

And if superhero genre in the movies business really does go belly-up one day, guess what? It means Marvel will get the movie rights of Spider-man, X-Men, and other properties from other studios back. Marvel (and Disney) will be able to have new movies that they can make through their own studio.

 

[jmc]

You're just stating the bleeding obvious. For reasons unbeknownst to me you're taking one comment I made about the MARVEL STUDIOS DIVISION of the company and trying to make out as if I've said something along the lines of Disney isn't going to make money out of Marvel if/when the studio division stops. I'm not quite sure what the hell it is you're trying to debate about so here endith the discussion.

 

[akfj]

And like you said, WB's mind isn't really on making superheroes, so why not (as Docker said), license it out to ther studios who will be willing to spend the money & resources to make them? Why hold on to them if they have no plan to make any of them except for the countless Superman and Batman movies that they've already made?

Some reasons:
A) They would have to share box office profits, control, and if the reception is positive, recognition.
B) Superhero movies don't have to be made and WB doesn't have to be forced to do anything. There will probably be characters who never have movies made about them because studios do not see the profitability in those characters. If there's enough demand, I'm sure they could make considerations.

And if superhero genre in the movies business really does go belly-up one day, guess what? It means Marvel will get the movie rights of Spider-man, X-Men, and other properties from other studios back. Marvel (and Disney) will be able to have new movies that they can make through their own studio.

If people get bored with superhero movies, what makes you think they would be interested in more of them?

 

[chiefchirpa]

I was referring to MARVEL STUDIOS, the film division of the company not the company itself.

Money and decision are still going to be funneled from Disney. If superhero movies are no longer viable (short term or god forbid, long term), Disney will make a decision whether to keep Marvel Studios intact with their experienced people to assist Disney in making non-superhero movies such as Tron or mothball the Studio. The fact is Marvel will still be inside Disney and in anytime possible Disney could resurrect Marvel Studios if it ever died.

For the time being, Marvel Studios formula is still a success in maintaining better check to the overall film quality without the need of a single visionary director. 2 Marvel films per year = win.

 

[chiefchirpa]

B) Superhero movies don't have to be made and WB doesn't have to be forced to do anything. There will probably be characters who never have movies made about them because studios do not see the profitability in those characters. If there's enough demand, I'm sure they could make considerations

If people get bored with superhero movies, what makes you think they would be interested in more of them?

Actually, it's even better for the superhero movie industry health if WB/DC does not try to ape Disney/Marvel barrage of movie releases. GL movie is one of WB's reactions to copy Marvel Studio formula, right?

How bout if they both take turn. Let Marvel/Disney have this decade. WB may keep making non comic movies and occasional Superman movies. Next decade: reboot Batman and the rest of JLA crew for it's then WB turn.

Nah, that wouldn't happen. Fight til the comic book movie crash!

 

[Docker2.0]

Well actually if the crash happened, DC would be out of luck because they haven't even really gotten started before it ends. Marvel won't stop any time soon, especially since they are having success. I fully expect Marvel to have a horror division within the next 3-5 years now that they have Blade, the Punisher, and hopefully Ghost Rider(after it bombs, which is very possible). They are already looking into opening up their cosmic characters and I can see them opening up a lot of different movies up soon.

 

[chiefchirpa]

Well actually if the crash happened, DC would be out of luck because they haven't even really gotten started before it ends. Marvel won't stop any time soon, especially since they are having success. I fully expect Marvel to have a horror division within the next 3-5 years now that they have Blade, the Punisher, and hopefully Ghost Rider(after it bombs, which is very possible). They are already looking into opening up their cosmic characters and I can see them opening up a lot of different movies up soon.

Someone will say: "Geez Disney/Marvel is flooding the superhero movie market until the industry crash."
Actually reads: "It's not fair, WB/DC should get more piece of the cake."

 

[akfj]

I doubt WB cares. They've been in the top 5 in studio market share every year since at least 2000, taking first several times as well: http://boxofficemojo.com/studio/

However, I'm sure there are those at DC that would love for their characters to be utilized for films, but what can they do? DC superheroes are just another asset for WB that they can use when they see fit.

 

[Raiden]

I doubt WB cares. They've been in the top 5 in studio market share every year since at least 2000, taking first several times as well: http://boxofficemojo.com/studio/

However, I'm sure there are those at DC that would love for their characters to be utilized for films, but what can they do? DC superheroes are just another asset for WB that they can use when they see fit.

The difference between Marvel Studios and DC Entertainment is that, while Marvel Studios can work pretty much independently from Disney and make decisions like they did before the acquisition by Disney, DC Entertainment is just a small fish inside WB's big pond, so even with movies like TDKR (which is based on a DC comic), they really have no creative input whatsoever. Chris Nolan, who before making BB was known for his small, independent movies, is now WB's go-to person when it comes to their DC movie adaptation. And the failure of GL deals a bit of a black eye to DC Entertainment, since Geoff John was involved in it.

Marvel perceives the superhero genre movies much differently than WB does, because even after becoming part of Disney, they still see it as an important part of their success, and this is why they've invested so much time, money, and resource into it. But WB has never really treated this genre with that much respect, and aside from Batman & Superman, they gave some half-hearted attempts (with Steel and Catwoman), and got some big-budgeted disappointments (SR, GL, Watchmen). Without Nolan's Batman trilogy, their decade's track record with superhero movies would've looked alot worse.

 

[Docker2.0]

Someone will say: "Geez Disney/Marvel is flooding the superhero movie market until the industry crash."
Actually reads: "It's not fair, WB/DC should get more piece of the cake."

Exactly! When Marvel has a hit, "well they should they are releasing 3 movies a year, oversaturated the market" but as soon as DCE has a hit(it's rare), it's always the "quanlity over quantity" BS which is all it is. Other than Nolan's Batman, they have really had no recent success. And it's no knock really on DCE, it's just that WB has a wrap on them so tight they can't do anything. It's funny that Disney is over Marvel but has really given Marvel the greenlight and support to release whatever they want to and supports and backs them, whereas DC it's the exact opposite with WB. One last thing, people keep saying WB has other markets but so does Disney but yet they back Marvel and gives them free reign. And if you think Marvel marketed their movies well recently, can you imagine how well they will be marketed once Disney truly has a firm hold of them, ie the Avengers?!

 

[Docker2.0]

The difference between Marvel Studios and DC Entertainment is that, while Marvel Studios can work pretty much independently from Disney and make decisions like they did before the acquisition by Disney, DC Entertainment is just a small fish inside WB's big pond, so even with movies like TDKR (which is based on a DC comic), they really have no creative input whatsoever. Chris Nolan, who before making BB was known for his small, independent movies, is now WB's go-to person when it comes to their DC movie adaptation. And the failure of GL deals a bit of a black eye to DC Entertainment, since Geoff John was involved in it.

Marvel perceives the superhero genre movies much differently than WB does, because even after becoming part of Disney, they still see it as an important part of their success, and this is why they've invested so much time, money, and resource into it. But WB has never really treated this genre with that much respect, and aside from Batman & Superman, they gave some half-hearted attempts (with Steel and Catwoman), and got some big-budgeted disappointments (SR, GL, Watchmen). Without Nolan's Batman trilogy, their decade's track record with superhero movies would've looked alot worse.

I actually feel bad for John though. Because like you stated, they really have no say so when it comes to their properties. Whatever Nolan says, Nolan gets. John can say he totally disagrees with the look of Bane and Superman but Nolan will laugh and say I'm out of here and the WB execs will apologize for John even thinking about questioning him. Nolan is basically a consultant on MOS but yet DCE isn't?! How much sense does that make? GL basically had very limited DCE input and look what happened with it? That movie should have been the Star Wars of the genre but it didn't happen. I'm just lost on how WB/DC(more WB)thinks when it comes to their properties.

 

[Tobias]

I think that until WB creates a seperate film company to bring the DC library of characters to film there will be few superhero films coming from WB. About 1/year has been the rate.

A seperate company dedicated to doing the superhero films w/ no interference from WB is, as I see it, the only way "lesser" DC characters will get films. The other alternative - WB licensing some characters to other studios I just don't see happening.

 

[Micromind]

Dc should license out two or three of their properties (for example Hawkman, Doom Patrol, Suicide Squad, Swamp Thing, Shazam, Teen Titans, Legion Of Super Heroes, JSA) to some studio, maybe Paramount since they are not having any Marvel heroes right now and watch how they make a profitable movie, which will compel WB to move ahead with their other DC properties.

 

[Red Mask]

GL basically had very limited DCE input and look what happened with it? That movie should have been the Star Wars of the genre but it didn't happen.

That's just something people say. Everybody has been trying to copy the Star Wars franchise since it first came out. The only one that ever came close was Star Trek, which started out on TV. No, what we got here was the sibling to the Last Starfighter.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I actually feel bad for John though.

I don't. He is one of the biggest reasons for the failure of GL. Look, I realize where you are coming from. Comic consultants are important to keep the essence of the characters intact. Yet at the same time, these guys are not filmmakers. They dont have the eye for the cinematic that is essential. I actually believe Green Lantern would have been better if Geoff wasn't as involved.

 

[Docker2.0]

I don't. He is one of the biggest reasons for the failure of GL. Look, I realize where you are coming from. Comic consultants are important to keep the essence of the characters intact. Yet at the same time, these guys are not filmmakers. They dont have the eye for the cinematic that is essential. I actually believe Green Lantern would have been better if Geoff wasn't as involved.

Well we'll never know. I actually don't think DCE had much of a voice even in GL, just trying to be optimistic.

 

[Red Mask]

Well we'll never know. I actually don't think DCE had much of a voice even in GL, just trying to be optimistic.

Optimistic or apologetic?

 

[Tobias]

I don't. He is one of the biggest reasons for the failure of GL. Look, I realize where you are coming from. Comic consultants are important to keep the essence of the characters intact. Yet at the same time, these guys are not filmmakers. They dont have the eye for the cinematic that is essential. I actually believe Green Lantern would have been better if Geoff wasn't as involved.

I think that's a good point about the need for filmmakers. It takes a certain eye/imagination to translate a character to the big screen. A comic book artist/writer in most cases may not have all the needed qualities so there needs to be complementary meshing of talent pools.

DCE seems to be an advisory group called in by WB when they want to do a DC superhero film. It's sort of hit and miss and lacks a focus. It really needs to be a studio unto itself.

WB could provide the start-up funding for a seperate film unit, bring in some great filmmakers - maybe they could entice someone with Marvel film experience - and give the unit autonomy.

At that point the new film unit could bring in DC consultants and hopefully find some DC comic book types who mesh well with some of the filmakers and go from there.

Have a modest agenda - say 2/3 films in the next 5 years. Let the new subsidiary pick the films it wants to make. Be it Wonder Woman or Elongated man. Basically let them at the DC library with few restrictions. WB won't let them do Batman or JL is my guess. But there are lots more characters to do.

Let the new film group make it or not based on it's own decisions, fund-raising and talent-attracting capabilities - and turning out films that earn their money back and more at the box office.

I think if a company knew it had 5 years to show a profit that alone would enforce a discipline on how much money is spent and how it is spent on each project. Marvel has a rep for being tight with it's money but that may be a good thing.

 

[The Sage]

Johns didn't just consult, I believe he re-wrote some of the script. Maybe he should've just consulted without writing.

 

[TheDragonator]

"Do we really look like a company with a plan? You know what we are? We're dogs chasing . We wouldn't know what do with a character if it bit me in the ass. You know, I just... do ****. Nolan has plans, we don't have plans, Marvel's got plans. You know, they're filmmakers. Schemers trying to develop their little worlds. We're not filmmakers. We try to show the filmmakers how sensible their attempts to control things really are. So, when we say... Ah, come here. When we say that you and your Green Lantern was nothing personal, you know that we're telling the truth. It's the studios that put you where you are. You were a fan, you had hopes, and look where that got you.

We just did what we do best. We took your little hopes and we turned it on itself. Look what I did to this fanbase with a few hundred million and two hundred bad reviews. Hmmm? You know... You know what we've noticed? Nobody panics when things go 'well and good.' Even if the film is wonderful! If, tomorrow, we tell the press that, like, The Dark Knight Rises will be shot, or a truck on the film set will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all 'well and good.' But when I say that one little old film will barely make half it's budget, well then everyone loses their minds!

Introduce a little indecency. Upset the established trend of good films, and everything becomes chaos. We're agents of chaos. Oh, and you know the thing about chaos? It's unfair!"

 

[HighFivingMF]

"Do we really look like a company with a plan? You know what we are? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with a character if it bit me in the ass. You know, I just... do ****. Nolan has plans, we don't have plans, Marvel's got plans. You know, they're filmmakers. Schemers trying to develop their little worlds. We're not filmmakers. We try to show the filmmakers how sensible their attempts to control things really are. So, when we say... Ah, come here. When we say that you and your Green Lantern was nothing personal, you know that we're telling the truth. It's the studios that put you where you are. You were a fan, you had hopes, and look where that got you.

We just did what we do best. We took your little hopes and we turned it on itself. Look what I did to this fanbase with a few hundred million and two hundred bad reviews. Hmmm? You know... You know what we've noticed? Nobody panics when things go 'well and good.' Even if the film is wonderful! If, tomorrow, we tell the press that, like, The Dark Knight Rises will be shot, or a truck on the film set will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all 'well and good.' But when I say that one little old film will barely make half it's budget, well then everyone loses their minds!

Introduce a little indecency. Upset the established trend of good films, and everything becomes chaos. We're agents of chaos. Oh, and you know the thing about chaos? It's unfair!"

 

[TheDragonator]

On a more serious note, I think DC could really do a great job with putting animated films into the theater. Animation is one of their greatest strengths, and building a film universe out of that could be great. If they write it like a live-action film, but draw it like an animated version of a live-action film, it could have massive potential.

 

[Red Mask]

On a more serious note, I think DC could really do a great job with putting animated films into the theater. Animation is one of their greatest strengths, and building a film universe out of that could be great. If they write it like a live-action film, but draw it like an animated version of a live-action film, it could have massive potential.

Agreed.