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

[kaleliancomplex]

Comic book movies are a tricky thing. The reason being, it needs to fill a number of niches:

1.) It needs to attract a primary demograph of 18-25
2.) Franchises in this day and age typically need to attract a name t do so
3.) You need to not isolate the core audience that's made such properties worth looking at.

Geen Lantern is probably a prime example of how wrong you can get it; many fans would agree that Nathan Fillion was made for the role of Hal Jordan; Hal Jordan is also a fan favourite from firefly, but isn't really popular as a mainstream face actor; he wouldn't have been nearly as recognisable as Ryan Reynolds would have been, who, while admittedly is something of a fan of the whole comic book genre...Is being asked to protray someone who isn't from the universe that he's a fan of - and he probably would have made a better Kyle.

Frankly I think it highlights how careful they need to be with man of steel; I've pretty much lived and breathed superman comics for 30 years, and this new iteration feels like they're completely isolating people like me. All in all though, I say let it die. Christopher Nolan pretty much killed the comic book genre with a crap version of batman anyway.

 

[Xeno-noesis]

Comic book movies are a tricky thing. The reason being, it needs to fill a number of niches:

1.) It needs to attract a primary demograph of 18-25
2.) Franchises in this day and age typically need to attract a name t do so
3.) You need to not isolate the core audience that's made such properties worth looking at.

Geen Lantern is probably a prime example of how wrong you can get it; many fans would agree that Nathan Fillion was made for the role of Hal Jordan; Hal Jordan is also a fan favourite from firefly, but isn't really popular as a mainstream face actor; he wouldn't have been nearly as recognisable as Ryan Reynolds would have been, who, while admittedly is something of a fan of the whole comic book genre...Is being asked to protray someone who isn't from the universe that he's a fan of - and he probably would have made a better Kyle.

Frankly I think it highlights how careful they need to be with man of steel; I've pretty much lived and breathed superman comics for 30 years, and this new iteration feels like they're completely isolating people like me. All in all though, I say let it die. Christopher Nolan pretty much killed the comic book genre with a crap version of batman anyway.

I liked your post but your last two sentences confused me. Let what die, making comic book films or changing the target audience?

And how did Nolan kill the genre? He kept it closer to the source material than expected. Remember, film is a different medium than print, so certain liberties will be taken.

Anyway, back on topic. The Green Lantern was tragic for DC and it critically damaged the secondary characters hoping for films. Personally, I think WB/DC needs to focus primarily on The Flash and Teen Titans. They desperately need something fresh and exciting, something to build a new foundation on.

 

[kaleliancomplex]

I liked your post but your last two sentences confused me. Let what die, making comic book films or changing the target audience?

And how did Nolan kill the genre? He kept it closer to the source material than expected. Remember, film is a different medium than print, so certain liberties will be taken.

Anyway, back on topic. The Green Lantern was tragic for DC and it critically damaged the secondary characters hoping for films. Personally, I think WB/DC needs to focus primarily on The Flash and Teen Titans. They desperately need something fresh and exciting, something to build a new foundation on.

I had hoped to start a thread on it...In fact I might if I can create a thread yet.

I don't think Nolan made a Batman film. What he did do, was take elements of batman and fill it solely into a vigilante genre typeset, and unfortunately it appears that many franchises in the world of DC are following suit, much in the same way they did when Watchmen launched in the 80's.

See for me, Superhero films are meant to be fantastical in every conceivable nature; you're meant to wonder where batman gets his wonderful toys from, without the explanation of where he gets his wonderful toys from a department in the basement of wayne towers, and his suit bought in bits from around the world so that no one company can put all the pieces together and figure it out. The architecture is meant to be this triumph of Gothic architecture - an entire city of it - the ledges of which batman lurks from in wait for evil doers; Nolan gave us...Well, he gave us Chicago with a few token pieces to make it look authentic here and there.

Nolan took Batman and mixed it with dirty harry, but in my mind Burton pretty much got it bang on with the first two films, with the third and the fourth certainly being truer to the feel of the comics than the hyper reality we're presented with in this day and age - and my fear is that this will carry over more and more, with hollywood dumbing down comic book storylines to please a mass audience that needs everything explain it to them.

Personally, I think they (warner/dc) should just walk away from making superhero films until they're willing to respect comic books for the contemporary literature of the 20th century that they are, instead of a cash cow that they're willing to exploit in the name of pandering to hipster geek chic culture. I don't see why they can't respect the material and pander - Marvel/Disney seem to be doing well at it.

 

[DrCosmic]

^But that's just you. Many people lack (or simply don't enjoy) the suspension of disbelief to enjoy a superhero movie when things are utterly fantastical. They go into a superhero film with different expectations than they would a kids movie. There's no doubt that the Nolan version was very unBatman-like in several ways, groundedness aside, but to say that it was low quality, just because it wasn't the way you prefer... well, that's not very clear communication.

 

[DrCosmic]

And Robert Downey, Jr.

Frankly, ditch the idea that the movie has to follow what's laid in the comics. In the case of Iron Man, it's really the movie that influence the current comics with the more eccentric, less buttoned down Tony Stark. Give the actors, directors, and producers some freedom in delivering a good movie for a much larger and varying audiences. Of course all without straying much out of the source materials. Lots of stuff in GL are made for comic fan service. That's not what you aim for in a movie, because 90% movie audiences won't understand that fan service.

Well I'm not really kidding with Robert Downey Jr. Or probably Chris Hemsworth and Michael Fassbender, too. An upstart comic franchise needs smart, dedicated actors that closely embody the roles.

Exactly. People forget how far the greatest comic book movies stray for the source material. Organic Webshooters? Where the heck is the Batmobile? Who cares, the movie is good, let this version be this version, and the comics version be something different.

 

[redfirebird2008]

^But that's just you. Many people lack (or simply don't enjoy) the suspension of disbelief to enjoy a superhero movie when things are utterly fantastical. They go into a superhero film with different expectations than they would a kids movie. There's no doubt that the Nolan version was very unBatman-like in several ways, groundedness aside, but to say that it was low quality, just because it wasn't the way you prefer... well, that's not very clear communication.

Plus it's pretty ludicrous to argue that Burton was any more faithful than Nolan. Both of them took a ton of liberties with the stories, characters, and visuals.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I actually see Green Lantern as a lot more believable than Batman in some ways. Green Lantern gets his powers from aliens, but things on Earth are pretty normal. Batman on the other hand lives in a world with no fantastic elements, yet craziness happens all the time.

 

[ClarkLuther55]

Nolan didn't "kill" anything. He made the most successful and popular movie in the entire genre. The Dark Knight was a true phenomenon: universal critical acclaim, beloved by fans, and one of the highest grossing movies ever.

The "realism" of the Nolan movies has been overstated by many people. This is still a film series with "memory cloth" gliding wings, a magical microwave superweapon, a roof jumping batmobile, and citywide cell phone sonar.

There are also many different portrayals of Batman, some more grounded than others. Batman: Year One, which Batman Begins was partially based on, is far more grounded than the Nolan movies. In Year One, there are no supervillains, and Batman's gadgets were kept to a minimum. It was just a young Batman taking on corrupt cops and mobsters.

It's ridiculous to say that Nolan killed the comic book movie genre, when pretty much every superhero film released after Nolan's Batman movies has had no problems embracing the fantastical.

 

[The Morningstar]

I don't like Nolan's Bat movies. Well, TDK anyway. They are too self important and melodramatic for their own good. There is barely any Batman iconography. Gotham looks like... Chicago. The martial arts is laughable. And the long winded, unnatural, anti-prose dialogue is painful a lot of the time.

But to say his movies killed the genre? Ridiculous.

 

[Airwings]

The future for DC films? It is to release Booster Gold, and Blue Beetle, and Lobo, and Swamp Thing etc. The chances of them being made has always been bigger than the other stuff about fast men and wonderous ladies. Not only are they better characters, but their storylines are more interesting AND more well-known to the public.
Add the fact that film versions of them will be cheaper to make.

 

[Cannikin]

I don't know why everyone hates on the GL movie. It was the best merging of animation and live action since "Who Framed Roger Rabit?".

As I stated in another topic, there is a point where suspension of disbelief crosses over into an insult to ones intelligence. The average movie going audience has a lot lower tolerance than us comic book fans.

 

[HighFivingMF]

The future for DC films? It is to release Booster Gold, and Blue Beetle, and Lobo, and Swamp Thing etc. The chances of them being made has always been bigger than the other stuff about fast men and wonderous ladies. Not only are they better characters, but their storylines are more interesting AND more well-known to the public.
Add the fact that film versions of them will be cheaper to make.

You think Blue Beetle and Lobo are more well known than The Flash and ****ING WONDER WOMAN!?!?!?

 

[Airwings]

You think Blue Beetle and Lobo are more well known than The Flash and ****ING WONDER WOMAN!?!?!?

I just like irony.
But the worst thing is that some people who writes this, actually MEAN it. Scary as they may be, I tried to make fun of them.

 

[baerrtt]

Comic book movies are a tricky thing. The reason being, it needs to fill a number of niches:

1.) It needs to attract a primary demograph of 18-25
2.) Franchises in this day and age typically need to attract a name t do so
3.) You need to not isolate the core audience that's made such properties worth looking at.

Geen Lantern is probably a prime example of how wrong you can get it; many fans would agree that Nathan Fillion was made for the role of Hal Jordan; Hal Jordan is also a fan favourite from firefly, but isn't really popular as a mainstream face actor; he wouldn't have been nearly as recognisable as Ryan Reynolds would have been, who, while admittedly is something of a fan of the whole comic book genre...Is being asked to protray someone who isn't from the universe that he's a fan of - and he probably would have made a better Kyle.

Frankly I think it highlights how careful they need to be with man of steel; I've pretty much lived and breathed superman comics for 30 years, and this new iteration feels like they're completely isolating people like me. All in all though, I say let it die. Christopher Nolan pretty much killed the comic book genre with a crap version of batman anyway.

GL failing had absolutely nothing to do with the 'I know how to make a comic book movie' crap you've posted above. From the way you're talking you've always been isolated from the genre because practically every CB movie that has succeeded with the public overall and occasionally critics has never been strictly faithful to it's source material.

 

[kaleliancomplex]

GL failing had absolutely nothing to do with the 'I know how to make a comic book movie' crap you've posted above. From the way you're talking you've always been isolated from the genre because practically every CB movie that has succeeded with the public overall and occasionally critics has never been strictly faithful to it's source material.

So you're telling me that if they'd at least hired someone who understood and enjoyed the source material, the film wouldn't have been better by a clear margin, and far more popular because of the DC fanbase alone?

 

[Digomania]

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

 

[jrd550]

DC are in a rough spot - you would think that being in the same company as your publishing wing you would have a clear strategy for bringing your publications to life, but they can't seem to get their act together. Jonah Hex was horrid. RED was okay. The Losers was a notch above okay. And GL failed to be great and it had to be great.

 

[Boy Scout]

I think they need to work with DCE and develop a clear, coherent plan for their properties. They need to figure out what works in the comics, what works on film, and what works for both. They need to figure out if they want the characters to exist in the same universe or in several separate universes. They need to compromise, get rid of, and tweak when appropriate. They need to bring together writers from the comic books who really understand the characters and film writers who will be able to craft good, compelling, relevant stories. The comic writers need to make sure that the film writers don't stray too far from the source material, and the film writers need to tone down certain elements that they know the GA won't favorably respond to and get rid of or tweak the stuff that won't work on film. I could go on and on and on. The point is: WB and DCE need to work together and come up with a plan. Otherwise, they'll get run over by the competition.

 

[chiefchirpa]

Are the over-reliance of legacy characters limiting DC cinematic options? Looking at top the characters of DC of IGN or other comic websites, many of them are legacy characters. Batman spawns Nightwing, Robin, Catwoman, Batgirl, Batwoman, the Huntress, and many more. Superman spawns Supergirl, Superboy, and Power Girl. Hal Jordan leads the other Green Lanterns. The personalities of each characters are different and special, but to a movie audience they may look similar or even perceive as one and the same.

Of course there second liner unique DC characters that may get overlooked in comics but has a chance for fame via moviereel because there's lesser chance for minor legacy characters to be filmed. Deadman maybe one. Or probably Mr Terrific.

 

[Boy Scout]

Nah. If DC really wanted to us thee legacy characters, they would. There's nothing stopping them from making (for example) a Supergirl movie and establishing her origin and history with Superman in that film. No, I think WB has enough problems getting the Superman/Barry Allen/Hal Jordan characters established, goodness knows how they'd muck up the legacy characters.

EDIT: The second tier characters don't need films. Live-action television shows would be ideal, though.

 

[The Overlord]

Nah. If DC really wanted to us thee legacy characters, they would. There's nothing stopping them from making (for example) a Supergirl movie and establishing her origin and history with Superman in that film. No, I think WB has enough problems getting the Superman/Barry Allen/Hal Jordan characters established, goodness knows how they'd muck up the legacy characters.

EDIT: The second tier characters don't need films. Live-action television shows would be ideal, though.

How many of these second tier characters would work on a TV budget though?

 

[Boy Scout]

How many of these second tier characters would work on a TV budget though?

Would you mind giving some examples?

 

[The Overlord]

Would you mind giving some examples?

You are the one who brought up the fact that second tier characters would work better in TV in the first place, so the examples would be the second tier characters you think work better on live action TV rather then film. A TV show's budget is way smaller then a movie's budget, so its far harder to do super heroes in a TV show then a movie, unless its a super hero that doesn't require a lot of special effects. The Question would be a easier to do then Hawkman as a TV show, just as an example.

 

[K'Prime]

I don't really see much of a future outside superman/batman.they might try to salvage green lantern some where down the line.and the flash still looks like its going to get made at some point.throw in the always in contention talks of wonder woman and aqua man. I don't see any other character getting a movie unless they wanna make a quick buck and sell the movie rights of some of the lesser brand names off to another studio.but no chance in hell that happens

 

[The Morningstar]

Nah. If DC really wanted to us thee legacy characters, they would. There's nothing stopping them from making (for example) a Supergirl movie and establishing her origin and history with Superman in that film. No, I think WB has enough problems getting the Superman/Barry Allen/Hal Jordan characters established, goodness knows how they'd muck up the legacy characters.

EDIT: The second tier characters don't need films. Live-action television shows would be ideal, though.

Maaaaaan, **** Barry Allen. He's about as interesting and charismatic as a goldfish bowl.