What is the future of DC films after the failure of "Green Lantern"?

[Axl Van Sixx]

I've been looking for a thread specifically devoted to this topic but haven't seen one. Before the release of GL, Warner Bros. execs were making big talk about how the company's plan for retaining box office revenue after the end of the Harry Potter franchise was to begin producing films about DC superheroes. Green Lantern was to be the opening shot for this trend.

Unfortunately, whatever you think of the film itself (like many, I thought it was a horrible disappointment), the fact is that it disastrously underperformed at the box office, and any talk of a sequel you may have heard was simply talk from high-ranking executives to save face during the summer movie season. The question now is, where does WB go from here in regards to its DC superhero stable?

WB has always focused primarily on the big two, Superman and Batman, and that doesn't seem to be changing, with the focus for the future firmly on The Dark Knight Rises and Man of Steel. But what about the rest? Do you guys foresee any major DC films made in the next several years? Will we see a Flash movie? Wonder Woman? Martian Manhunter? Or do you think such projects are off the table for another decade at least? It's worth pointing out that WB is not repeating the Marvel formula and tying its various properties together in a single universe, but seems to envision each of its characters in a separate, self-contained world, making crossover films unlikely (would Captain America: The First Avenger have gotten made if it wasn't a key pillar of Marvel's Avengers strategy?).

 

[Lencho01]

I don't think there ever really was a future.

 

[Boy Scout]

It's certainly not as bright as it was before, but I hope that'll change soon enough.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

Grim, probably non-existent. To use a poker parlance, when a nit like WB gets wamboozled while going all-in as they did with GL, they tend to shrink even further.

 

[superhero]

green lanter 2 come out sumer 2013

 

[Boy Scout]

green lanter 2 come out sumer 2013

That's incredibly unlikely.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Grim, probably non-existent. To use a poker parlance, when a nit like WB gets wamboozled while going all-in as they did with GL, they tend to shrink even further.

That's really the whole problem right there - Warner Bros. went all in on GL. They spent so much money on that movie, both for production and marketing, and yet forgot the most important point - to make sure they had a good film on their hands. When it comes to their superhero films, Warner Bros. seems to favour the strategy of just throwing more money at the problem. Marvel Studios, on the other hands, seems a lot more invested in making sure they have a quality product.

There's actually a kind of paradox there. Marvel makes quality films for cynical reasons: because their brand is so intimately tied up with these characters, that if they made a laughably bad Thor or Captain America film, it would harm their core business - films, comics, TV shows, and all other merchandise. WB, on the other hand, is a major film studio with all kinds of projects and DC superheroes are a tiny minority of their product. They just don't have the same business need to focus on their superhero films and make sure they're quality. It's all product for the WB executives. Green Lantern is now a lot less cool because he starred in a crappy movie, but aside from the lost profits from sinking so much money into a box office bomb, what do the execs care? They've got all kinds of movies they can make.

My guess that, TDKR aside, WB will be relying on Superman to decide the future of DC comics films. If Supes is a success, there's a chance they might take a try on another one of their second-tier characters again. My guess is that will be The Flash, mainly because that movie has been rumoured for so long and WB execs, who are slaves to conventional wisdom ("The Dark Knight was dark and made a billion dollars. Durrr...that must be because it was dark! Let's make a Superman movie and make that dark too!"), will favour The Flash over Wonder Woman because they believe that female-centric superhero movies are more likely to fail.

 

[TheDragonator]

Slow and difficult for heroes not Batman or Superman.

Correction: Slower and more difficult.

 

[DrCosmic]

I think their future plans will continue to revolve around Superman and Batman. The best chance that the rest of the film universe has is the Batman-Superman team up movie, which is still on the table. If that hits, then they may make more team up movies and thereby introduce other characters.

But all of that is still predicated on how TDKR ends, and how the Batman Reboot will be able to continue, and how soon.

Everything else is a long shot, and will have to prove itself to execs more thoroughly than Green Lantern did. GL had a great concept, great successful creators familiar with the character in all its incarnations, plenty of budget, plenty of marketing. If it didn't do well, what can?

Until then, expect Superman and Batman to tag team.

 

[Duke]

I'd say they'll likely try again with Green Lantern or another character down the line. Granted, Green Lantern was a disappointment at the box office, but it wasn't totally bad. It needed to be grittier & more action oriented. I also think it needed more emphasis on the Green Lantern Corps & the Guardians.

Just imagine if Marvel would quit after some their failures like The Punisher, Elektra, and a few others. In my opinion, you have to craft a good storyline, casting, etc. & just take a chance.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Batman 3
Superman
Batman 4/1
Superman 2
Batman 2
Superman 3
Batman 3

Justice League?

Superman
Batman

Repeat...

 

[Cain]

Superman/Batman, Batman/Superman and Batman & Superman will be future movies while The Flash will not. Judging by Green Lantern they just don't have any respect for or real interest in these characters. This was their attempt at supposedly taking it serious and handling it with care. Epic ****in fail.

Seems to me that DC IP's outside of the big 2 are not a priority for Warner Brothers. WB's interests lie elsewhere right now (*cough*The Hobbit*cough*) with things that are actually pretty much money in the bank. Not in what to them are low rent superheroes.

 

[The Guard]

Boy, there are a lot of silly statements and assumptions in this thread. I'm fairly certain WB realizes that, Green Lantern aside, superheroes can still be a gold mine. WB is clearly working on Flash, Wonder Woman and Aquaman movies in some capacity, and possibly a Green Lantern sequel, with an eye toward a Justice League movie. Marvel is a studio that only has to focus on comic book movies. WB is not. Therein lies the difference. I think it's ridiculous to assume we won't see more superhero movies than just Superman and Batman from WB.

 

[DrCosmic]

I think its a bit naive to think that because a movie is being worked on in some capacity, that it will ever see the light of day. I agree that WB thinks superheroes can still be a gold mine, the problem is that now they're only going to greenlight movies they are sure will be goldmines. Movie execs don't bank on hope.

 

[jrd550]

tough, it seems like WB have all the advantages of owning their own characters but don't know how to use them.

GL had everything to work except for a good script. They should redeem the first film by making an amazing sequel.

WB have also messed up with a ton of other comic properties: Jonah Hex was terrible - absolute dribble.

The Losers was ok. Red was also just ok. And Constantine although good could have been so much better.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Boy, there are a lot of silly statements and assumptions in this thread. I'm fairly certain WB realizes that, Green Lantern aside, superheroes can still be a gold mine. WB is clearly working on Flash, Wonder Woman and Aquaman movies in some capacity, and possibly a Green Lantern sequel, with an eye toward a Justice League movie. Marvel is a studio that only has to focus on comic book movies. WB is not. Therein lies the difference. I think it's ridiculous to assume we won't see more superhero movies than just Superman and Batman from WB.

You know this for a fact? Where is the evidence for this?

They've had many opportunities to make a Wonder Woman film and WB has always passed on it. Same thing with Flash. Development Hell is not exactly progress.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Movie execs don't bank on hope.

Actually they do sometimes. Marvel Entertainment gambled a lot on starting their own studio. Warner Bros. was originally considered foolish for the deal they made with Harry Potter. Disney made a Tron sequel because Dick Cook's daughter loved it. Fox rebooted Planet of the Apes this summer with a lot of hope that it would revive the franchise.

Also, if a Green Lantern sequel is made, I doubt it'll be because of hope. It'll be more along the lines of Warner Bros. wanting to keep the DC brand active in the public eye for franchising. Licensing and franchising is why Cars (one of Pixar's weakest performers both financially and critically) got a sequel. Warner Bros. wants Green Lantern to be successful in movies, comics, video games, toys, t-shirts, television, etc. Abandoning Green Lantern in film will hurt Green Lantern in almost every other licensing and merchandising aspect.

 

[hippie_hunter]

They've had many opportunities to make a Wonder Woman film and WB has always passed on it. Same thing with Flash. Development Hell is not exactly progress.

Warner Bros. has a script that they like for the Flash. And Nicolas Refn has come out saying that Warner Bros. has promised him Wonder Woman if Logan's Run does well.

 

[Thundercrack85]

It makes sense for DC to focus on Batman and Superman, those are their most successful franchises.

But they could do more with their other franchises. Aqua Man seems pretty doable.

Green Lantern wasn't an easy franchise to adapt. Nobody cares about Jonah Hex (and it was a bad movie). They need to work on their other big name (or at least, easily recognized) titles. I don't care for Wonder Woman, but I'm sure they could make something commercially successful.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Warner Bros. has a script that they like for the Flash. And Nicolas Refn has come out saying that Warner Bros. has promised him Wonder Woman if Logan's Run does well.

They've had scripts for Flash before, just like they've have scripts for Wonder Woman. At this point, I'll believe it is getting made when I see the set pics on the Internet.

 

[jmc]

Warner Bros. has a script that they like for the Flash. And Nicolas Refn has come out saying that Warner Bros. has promised him Wonder Woman if Logan's Run does well.

Eh that's not exactly true, Refn is keen to do a WW film, he hasn't been promised anything by WB though.

 

[The Guard]

You know this for a fact? Where is the evidence for this?

Google any major DC superhero and the words "WB and film" along with it.

Unless they're outright lying to the world...yeah, they're in development and they're planning various films. And why lie? How does that make them money?

They've had many opportunities to make a Wonder Woman film and WB has always passed on it. Same thing with Flash. Development Hell is not exactly progress.

WB has also passed over several Superman projects, and several Batman projects in the past, and yet, they've gone on to develop other versions. Development Hell isn't always permanent.

I've read several of the abandoned WW scripts, and they weren't that great. We've heard what Joss Whedon wanted to do with it. Not all that impressed. And if Joss Whedon can't get a movie made...is it that great a concept? Pretty sure WB was right to pass on Wonder Woman in the incarnations it has seen so far, just like they were right not to greenlight Aronofsky and Miller's BATMAN: YEAR ONE just because it was developed. Jonah Hex was a bad movie. Jonah Hex also cost $47 million and was based on a relatively obscure character. Wasn't an enormous risk for the studio. Green Lantern was a box office failure. And yet WB is still very publicly working on Flash script, has talked about a possible GL sequel, is discussing a JLA project, Aquaman, Wonder Woman, a rebooted Batman franchise, and there's a new Superman movie coming out. I really don't think they're teasing these films for the hell of it. That won't make them any money.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Spider-Man, Iron Man, Thor and Captain America, once Marvel commited to them, took years to get off the ground. Two decades each for Spider-Man and Iron Man, which had been in their own development hell for a long time, and then something like seven years for Thor and Captain America. All these films have had rumors and development in various stages for a long, long time.

Superheroes really only became widely popular again in the early to mid 2000's, with the X-Men and Spider-Man franchises. Movies about lesser known superheroes (which the exception of Blade) have only recently become really viable, thanks to movies like Iron Man. Thor and Captain America were released just this year.

WB is not spending money on scripts and development with an eye not to make these movies. They're just being a little careful with them. And after Green Lantern, and the potential that was somewhat wasted there, I think thats reasonable.

 

[Changeling]

Eh that's not exactly true, Refn is keen to do a WW film, he hasn't been promised anything by WB though.

http://collider.com/nicolas-winding-refn-wonder-woman-logans-run/109603/

that link is why he said that

its not a confirmation but he did say “I would love to make Wonder Woman. And I also think that Christina Hendricks would be the perfect Wonder Woman, but Warner Bros haven’t called yet. But I’m getting closer with Logan’s Run. I think someone said to me in a meeting that if I get Logan’s Run right, then I’ll get ‘Wonder Woman.”

 

[chiefchirpa]

I think they will try with the Flash before calling it quit except for Batman and occasional Superman. The Flash will certainly be another comic book sourced film like Green Lantern. Man of Steel isn't so much, but Flash will done "by the book".

Aquaman and Wonder Woman are pipe dreams unless Flash could show the way.

 

[superion]

Actually they do sometimes. Marvel Entertainment gambled a lot on starting their own studio. Warner Bros. was originally considered foolish for the deal they made with Harry Potter. Disney made a Tron sequel because Dick Cook's daughter loved it. Fox rebooted Planet of the Apes this summer with a lot of hope that it would revive the franchise.

Also, if a Green Lantern sequel is made, I doubt it'll be because of hope. It'll be more along the lines of Warner Bros. wanting to keep the DC brand active in the public eye for franchising. Licensing and franchising is why Cars (one of Pixar's weakest performers both financially and critically) got a sequel. Warner Bros. wants Green Lantern to be successful in movies, comics, video games, toys, t-shirts, television, etc. Abandoning Green Lantern in film will hurt Green Lantern in almost every other licensing and merchandising aspect.

I don't see much hope for Green Lantern and any comparison to Cars is a stretch. Cars was still a hit in theaters ($461 million worldwide gross to $120 million budget) and Cars was a billion dollar licensing franchise.

Has DC really made much money from licensing GL.