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

[Hypestyle]

DC needs to 'pull the trigger' on developing more franchises beyond superman and batman. Anything less is just sitting on intellectual property and selling the public on the "idea" more than the "reality" of making such films/TV shows. This was Marvel's problem in the 70s/80s/90s, until Avi Arad finally got involved and began aggressively pursuing projects finally and getting new deals in place. People make fun of the guy now, but he actually got projects done and out of the gate-- with due respect to Stan, what project did he spearhead on his own that actually managed to come out?

DC may even have leverage with lesser-known properties that can be revamped like the Blade concept was--
House of Mystery, House of Secrets, Weird War Tales, The War that Time Forgot, Challengers of the Unknown, Haunted Tank..

 

[jmc]

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.”

But it's not confirmation, hell Refn doesn't even seem to even remember if he was promised it.

 

[arman200]

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

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.

What? Green Lantern wasn't tough to adapt. Despite the feelings of some SHH members, Secret Origins was totally something that would transfer well to screen and be widely accepted. It was written as a good jumping on point for new readers, and if they'd stuck to that, general audiences would have eaten that up. Green Lantern wasn't tough to adapt, they just made poor decisions. Martin Campbell as a director was always up in the air, but the three leads were decades apart. Blake Lively was in her 20's, Reynolds in his 30's, and Saarsgard is in his 40's, yet they were supposed to be childhood friends of the same age. That alone should get WB to thinking there's a problem with the people they've assigned to putting together these movies.

As for Jonah Hex, whether anyone cares is moot. Nobody cared for Iron Man before Marvel released the first flick. The point was to MAKE people care, and instead they made a flick that seemed very similar to that god-awful "Wild Wild West" movie. And the same goes with choosing people. Josh Brolin with Megan Fox? Come on.

If they wanted to bank their future with multiple franchises on these two, they should have made better choices. They did it with the Harry Potter franchise, and with the newer Batman trilogy.

As Guard said, there's still likely to be more than just Batman and Superman. With Harry Potter over, and The Batman trilogy coming to an end, they need a big franchise to keep the money coming in. The Flash is being written, but they seriously need to pull in some real writers to do an overhaul if it's the same guys that worked on the Green Lantern script. I really want this to go somewhere. Hell, I'd love to one day see a Blue beetle/Booster Gold Buddy comedy(as unlikely as that is). But first, WB has to improve their decision making process and have a clear understanding of who's right for what project. I don't just mean actors either. What in Martin Campbell's career indicated that he'd be good for an intergalactic police corps superhero movie? The same goes with Jimmy Hayward on Jonah Hex.

 

[Lord]

What? Green Lantern wasn't tough to adapt. Despite the feelings of some SHH members, Secret Origins was totally something that would transfer well to screen and be widely accepted. It was written as a good jumping on point for new readers, and if they'd stuck to that, general audiences would have eaten that up. Green Lantern wasn't tough to adapt, they just made poor decisions. Martin Campbell as a director was always up in the air, but the three leads were decades apart. Blake Lively was in her 20's, Reynolds in his 30's, and Saarsgard is in his 40's, yet they were supposed to be childhood friends of the same age. That alone should get WB to thinking there's a problem with the people they've assigned to putting together these movies.

As for Jonah Hex, whether anyone cares is moot. Nobody cared for Iron Man before Marvel released the first flick. The point was to MAKE people care, and instead they made a flick that seemed very similar to that god-awful "Wild Wild West" movie. And the same goes with choosing people. Josh Brolin with Megan Fox? Come on.

If they wanted to bank their future with multiple franchises on these two, they should have made better choices. They did it with the Harry Potter franchise, and with the newer Batman trilogy.

As Guard said, there's still likely to be more than just Batman and Superman. With Harry Potter over, and The Batman trilogy coming to an end, they need a big franchise to keep the money coming in. The Flash is being written, but they seriously need to pull in some real writers to do an overhaul if it's the same guys that worked on the Green Lantern script. I really want this to go somewhere. Hell, I'd love to one day see a Blue beetle/Booster Gold Buddy comedy(as unlikely as that is). But first, WB has to improve their decision making process and have a clear understanding of who's right for what project. I don't just mean actors either. What in Martin Campbell's career indicated that he'd be good for an intergalactic police corps superhero movie? The same goes with Jimmy Hayward on Jonah Hex.

 

[The Guard]

People make fun of the guy now, but he actually got projects done and out of the gate-- with due respect to Stan, what project did he spearhead on his own that actually managed to come out?

Stripperella.

 

[Gamma Burst]

green lanter 2 come out sumer 2013

LOL. Yeah, and hell will freeze over.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Green Lantern, as so many have said, could have been and should have been the Star Wars of superhero movies. They could have created this entire universe. But instead they kept the movie grounded on Earth most of the time and tried to copy the template of Iron Man.

You know, at this point, I'm willing to say that Warner Bros. should just forget about making a Justice League project for another generation. They didn't get the timing of the Batman and Superman series in sync, and the whole point of these team-up movies is that you see actors you've grown to love in their roles all on screen together. Christian Bale and Henry Cavill on screen together would have been awesome, but that ship has almost certainly sailed. And to have a JL film with Ryan Reynolds would just bring back bad memories. As much as I like Reynolds in general and wanted to give him a chance, he was terribly miscast as Hal Jordan.

So as far as I'm concerned, they should just shelve that idea and concentrate on making individual films that are tailored to each character's individual sensibility. You could have a comedic, over-the-top Flash movie, dark and gritty Batman movies, a mythology-based Wonder Woman film influenced by 300 or Immortals, and so on.

 

[04nbod]

I think there is still hope for Teen Titans, probably branded as Titans with Nightwing and the Animated series characters. The TT/Young Justice brand is doing very well.

As a pipedream I'd love Supergirl/LOSH

 

[Micromind]

I just hope that WB is still thinking about other characters that are not Batman / Superman.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

You know, at this point, I'm willing to say that Warner Bros. should just forget about making a Justice League project for another generation. They didn't get the timing of the Batman and Superman series in sync, and the whole point of these team-up movies is that you see actors you've grown to love in their roles all on screen together. Christian Bale and Henry Cavill on screen together would have been awesome, but that ship has almost certainly sailed. And to have a JL film with Ryan Reynolds would just bring back bad memories. As much as I like Reynolds in general and wanted to give him a chance, he was terribly miscast as Hal Jordan.

So as far as I'm concerned, they should just shelve that idea and concentrate on making individual films that are tailored to each character's individual sensibility. You could have a comedic, over-the-top Flash movie, dark and gritty Batman movies, a mythology-based Wonder Woman film influenced by 300 or Immortals, and so on.

I agree completely.

Though personally I'd be more focused on making cartoon series for each individual character. Making sure that the kids of today grow up into teenages who remember watching The Flash and Green Lantern cartoons when they were little.

In my childhood, I remember Spiderman cartoons, I remember iron man, fantastic four, x-men, sliver surfer, the hulk... Marvel totally ruled kids tv superheroes.

I don't remember a single DC property from when I was growing up except Lois and Clark, and a little bit later on Batman Beyond.

 

[Mako]

I just hope that WB is still thinking about other characters that are not Batman / Superman.

Agree and if they are I think alots going to be riding on Flash if it ever gets made.

 

[Lord]

I agree completely.

Though personally I'd be more focused on making cartoon series for each individual character. Making sure that the kids of today grow up into teenages who remember watching The Flash and Green Lantern cartoons when they were little.

In my childhood, I remember Spiderman cartoons, I remember iron man, fantastic four, x-men, sliver surfer, the hulk... Marvel totally ruled kids tv superheroes.

I don't remember a single DC property from when I was growing up except Lois and Clark, and a little bit later on Batman Beyond.

Then you didn't watch enought, DC had some of the best shows of the time: Batman: TAS, Superman, Justice League, Justice League Unlimated, Batman Beyond

 

[Keyser Soze]

Green Lantern underperforming is a real shame. With the summer of 2011 packed with 4 big superhero blockbusters, law of averages dictated that one of them had to be "The Turkey". And I really didn't want it to be Green Lantern, because it was the film that had the most to lose in failing.

Having watched it, I thought it was a solid middle-of-the-road superhero movie, not great, but far from terrible: around the same level as Thor or Captain America in terms of quality. But it seemed it had been decreed Green Lantern would be the stinker long before its release, from the sniffy view of the CGI to the poor reception for the trailer, to the point where its critical lashing became a self-fulfilling prophecy. And the more people hate something, the more other people hate it also, not wanting to be the one going against the concensus. It's like a runaway train.

But I do hope that they get the chance to make Green Lantern 2, to fix the flaws of the first film while maintaining what worked. And even if they don't, a one-two punch of The Dark Knight Rises and the Man of Steel being massive hits would make any disappointment surrounding Green Lantern a distant memory, and WB would likely be quick to get other comic book projects greenlit to maintain the momentum.

Of course, the disclaimer written into that statement is that there is now an incredible amount of pressure on The Man of Steel to deliver the goods. Even in the unlikely event that the film's quality is lacking, The Dark Knight Rises is about as close as one can get to a sure thing in terms of box office prospects. But The Man of Steel needs to be a big hit for WB/DC to be encouraged to keep making superhero films rather than just making Batman films.

 

[chiefchirpa]

Having watched it, I thought it was a solid middle-of-the-road superhero movie, not great, but far from terrible: around the same level as Thor or Captain America in terms of quality.

Most movie critics, amateurs and professionals, in site like RT and IMDB would very much disagree with your "generalization".

 

[chiefchirpa]

Green Lantern, as so many have said, could have been and should have been the Star Wars of superhero movies. They could have created this entire universe. But instead they kept the movie grounded on Earth most of the time and tried to copy the template of Iron Man.

You could have a comedic, over-the-top Flash movie, dark and gritty Batman movies, a mythology-based Wonder Woman film influenced by 300 or Immortals, and so on.

I think budgetary reason is one of the big killers of GL. GL should be one of the last JLA member movie before the JLA movie because of it's heavy use of CGI. I think several years ahead, CG tech would be more cheaper and that's the right time to do a GL movie justice with more space scenes than earth scenes.

Agreed with your last paragraph.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I really think this movie just suffered from terrible writing and bad acting. The effects weren't great, but it wouldn't have mattered if they were awesome. Everything else was problematic.

They could have made Oa look like generic California, had some decent acting, and it would be better. They could have set the entire movie on Earth, with an Oa / space tease after the credits, and it could have been a better movie just with some decent writing and acting.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Most movie critics, amateurs and professionals, in site like RT and IMDB would very much disagree with your "generalization".

I don't see how it's a generalisation if I'm saying what I thought of the movie. As far as the critical response goes, that was my exact point, that a movie like Thor in fact shared many of the flaws that Green Lantern had, but somehow got off much more leniently from the critics than Green Lantern did. Some movies just suffer from anti-hype that they can't overcome, and Green Lantern was one of those movies.

Not that it was a masterpiece or anything. It is in no danger of bothering my list of the top films of 2011, and I'd rank it at the bottom of the four superhero movies released this year. But it's hardly a Catwoman/Batman & Robin level turkey like some have been proclaiming it to be.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Then you didn't watch enought, DC had some of the best shows of the time: Batman: TAS, Superman, Justice League, Justice League Unlimated, Batman Beyond

It's not that I didn't watch enough. Those shows weren't on UK tv when I was a kid. In fact, last time I looked we still can't get a dvd box set of the series - only random dvds with a few eppies on - in our region.

 

[The Morningstar]

I don't see how it's a generalisation if I'm saying what I thought of the movie. As far as the critical response goes, that was my exact point, that a movie like Thor in fact shared many of the flaws that Green Lantern had, but somehow got off much more leniently from the critics than Green Lantern did. Some movies just suffer from anti-hype that they can't overcome, and Green Lantern was one of those movies.

Not that it was a masterpiece or anything. It is in no danger of bothering my list of the top films of 2011, and I'd rank it at the bottom of the four superhero movies released this year. But it's hardly a Catwoman/Batman & Robin level turkey like some have been proclaiming it to be.

What flaws did Thor and GL share then? I can only see that they both spent too much time on Earth.

But Thor was just superior in pretty much every department. The acting, the protagonist, the antagonist. More importantly, it was fun and charming, not soulless, sterile and borderline mean spirited like GL.

There is a line in GL that Carol says to Hal "You've been given so much, so often..."

AND HE IS STILL A ****ING WHINGER! Yea, that is a lead character you can root for. That line sums up why Hal Jordan, the movie version, is a terrible protagonist. How can anyone root for that guy? He has everything. A cool job, hot women all over him, a family and friends that cares about him deeply even though he is a nihilistic *****e bag. And his character arc is terrible. He suddenly becomes a hero at the end after a pep talk from Carol. He doesn't learn anything himself. He doesn't come to some natural realisation that yea, he is a prick.

Thor? He's an arrogant *****e sure. But he's charming. He's like a big kid. And his heart is ultimately in the right place. His arc whilst not perfect, is much better than Hal's. Thor realises that he has been a prick. Partly thanks to the lies of Loki. I mean yea, if you were told your arrogant behaviour has caused your Dad to keel over and your Mum to disown you, well, you gotta buck your ideas up.

 

[Micromind]

I agree that GL movie was not as bad as Elektra, Batman and Robin, Catwoman & Blade 3 but the critics and GA were just not willing to give the movie a fair chance.

The GL movie had many flaws and the one thing that most hurt it most was that the CGI effects were not completed in time and they did cut back on several key scenes due to increasing budget costs (just look at the extended version DVD - It has some unfinished deleted scenes.)

* People had already made up their mind about this movie's quality after the first trailer was released.


* Many people thought that Hal Jordan was not charming just because Ryan (Van Wilder) Reynolds was portraying him, for them that was enough to hate the movie from the beginning.

* Then some were against the movie cause they wanted a black guy - John Stewart as GL.

* Many people were angry at the script for having a tone similar to Iron Man even before ther first trailer was released.

* The first Trailer showed goofy one liners and some campy moments and that killed whatever momentum the movie had.

* Then, Unfinished scenes in Space that were deleted hurt the movie as well.

* Finally, the choice of Parallax Cloud as a villain and freakish looking Hector Hammond was a mistake that cost them in terms of Box office collections.

 

[The Morningstar]

The biggest problem was that the titular character was a character no one gives a **** about or can connect to.

 

[chamber-music]

I have to admit I struggeled to like Reynolds Hal. Its not Reynolds fault I just think the character was that well written.

In many ways The Flash would of been the safer bet as his much more a conventional Superhero. Green Lanterns unique selling point was that it had the Star Wars style space opera element as well as the standard Superhero stuff.

I truely think you can make almost any Superhero into a successful profitable movie given the right approach.

Many people said Thor, Blade and Iron Man couldn't be successful and were proved wrong.

Avi Arad has talked many times about going to various Hollywood movie studios in the 90s trying to get Spider-Man made and them laughing in his face when he told them a Spider-Man movie franchise would be worth a billion dollars.

On the whole I think Superhero movies are steadily improving in terms of overall quality. The things audiences thought couldn't work on film are being more accepted as people get used to the concepts.

 

[Micromind]

The biggest problem was that the titular character was a character no one gives a **** about or can connect to.

That may be true, in Emerald Dawn Hal was even more unlikable character, Goeff Johns did try to make him more sympathetic in Secret Origins, but he was still not as likable as other heroes.

 

[The Morningstar]

That's the thing. Films like Thor and Captain America are not brilliant. But their lead characters were likable, charming, people could feel for them or at least understand where they are coming from.

Movie Hal Jordan has absolutely none of those features. People can bring up his Dad's death, but in the theatrical release it was so poorly done I bet most people found it laughable rather than tragic.

 

[chiefchirpa]

I don't see how it's a generalisation if I'm saying what I thought of the movie. As far as the critical response goes, that was my exact point, that a movie like Thor in fact shared many of the flaws that Green Lantern had, but somehow got off much more leniently from the critics than Green Lantern did. Some movies just suffer from anti-hype that they can't overcome, and Green Lantern was one of those movies.

Not that it was a masterpiece or anything. It is in no danger of bothering my list of the top films of 2011, and I'd rank it at the bottom of the four superhero movies released this year. But it's hardly a Catwoman/Batman & Robin level turkey like some have been proclaiming it to be.

Generalization were made when GL, Cap, and Thor were all put in one bucket called "average". Thor and Cap should have been thrown into a bucket called "above average" or at worst "average" like any 50% or above RT scored films. GL with a sub 50% score in RT, should have succinctly been put in the "below average" bucket. Not limited budget bad like Elektra and Catwoman, just below average thanks to $200 million budget and some actors it gotten.

I mean these critics are mostly unbiased toward any comics and they judge solely on the quality of the movies, stories and acting. Mostly they don't fudge scores because they're familiar with the comic lore and all. Thor is well liked because of the charismatic acting of lead roles. Cap is well liked because of the "not just a soldier, but a good man" theme. What's to like in GL from the view of someone uninitiated to the DC universe?