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

[actionavenue]

Haven't seen the Green Latern movie yet, but it sounds like most of you disliked it. That is unfortunate. I have enjoyed most of the superhero movies that have been released up to this point, and anticipate the future releases as well. Hopefully, a Green Latern reboot will be forthcoming at some point. Also, would like to see a Justice League movie.

 

[Rockstar]

Why would they even bother doing a reboot?


The only reason we're even getting a Superman reboot was the lawsuit. Prior to that, there was no movement on the property (Horn's testimony) and Warners was content with shelving Superman.

WB/DC isn't Marvel Studios.... unfortunately.

 

[Micromind]

It doesnt surprise me, I used to hate Fox but the last few years they have brought themselves back big time. Predators, A-Team and then especially Rise and First Class. WB has been rumoured to have tampered with a few movies lately.



They also messed with Clash Of The Titans and I believe one other, might have been Immortals. Its stupid though, its like their meddling has produced good results, Clash made a profit but it was a poor film and JH and GL were both terrible and average at best respectively, and both did poor at the BO.

I agree that COTT, JH and to certain extent GL was poor because of studio's interference and paint by numbers approach(studio mandated formula).

In case of Immortals, it is not a WB project but it had same producers as 300, and it was released by Relativity Media (a new studio.)

I blame Jeff Robinov for the mess, he was the one who thought that Darker is better method before release of Watchmen and wanted other dark projects to go ahead like Lobo, and a rumored Bizzaro Superman movie.

 

[Red Mask]

Reynolds was completely goofy in the role. The silly CGI costume didn't help him much.

Audiences couldn't take him seriously. It was Van Wilder in space. He brought baggage to the role, as general audiences identify him as the same goofy character in every film. GL did nothing to change that.

I think they should have cast Kermit the Frog as Green Lantern. I would have been more fun and awesome! t:

The GL script was fanwank trash.

Even the story where they separated Paralllax from Hal had self-centered, *********ory dialogue. The only thing I liked about that story is when Hal punched Batman. t:

Or maybe the concept has grown into a pseudoscience self-help pamphlet.

Wait a minute...this stuff sounds bit like...scientology!

 

[Lily Adler]

I think they should have cast Kermit the Frog as Green Lantern. I would have been more fun and awesome! t:

Hey, we should save that when the Muppets parody the Justice League.

 

[Red Mask]

Hey, we should save that when the Muppets parody the Justice League.

There's enough green in Kermit to light up all of Oa. t:

 

[Obsidian Idea]

I actually just recently saw Green Lantern the movie and it wasn't the piece of turd everybody was crying about.

Now we have to take into account that I've never read a Green Lantern comic book. I'm only familiar with the character through Justice League comics and the animated series.

Reynolds, IMO, did a fair job in the character. The plot was...generic but not any worse that the other comic book plots I've seen.

The most engaging parts were on Oa and in meeting the Green Lantern Corps. Those scenes were epic and felt, for lack of a better descriptions, "Green Lanternery."

Overall, I found it decent. I don't think they need to reboot it. They just need to get someone to put together an awesome script for the sequel and solid director and producer.

I think DC still has a chance to shine. DC/Warner Bros. just need to get their ish together and stop playing around. They need to focus on doing their own thing and take their eyes off Marvel.

 

[Tobias]

Why would they even bother doing a reboot?


The only reason we're even getting a Superman reboot was the lawsuit. Prior to that, there was no movement on the property (Horn's testimony) and Warners was content with shelving Superman.

WB/DC isn't Marvel Studios.... unfortunately.

This is true. WB was set to end the Supes movie franchise but the lawsuit ordered them to make another film.

Given that and the fact that GL made a lot less than SR (they cost about the same to make) I'd be suprised if WB didn't walk away from the GL franchise too.

JL is probably the only hope to see a live action GL on the big creen.

If this were Marvel Studios it's probably be a different story.

If I had to mkee a guess I''d say WB will focus more on the broadrer sci-fantasy genre than specially comics. As in 300 and Watchmen - they have a lot of potentially profitable such properties they could exploiit as franchises.

I think we'll see Batman and Batman related film projects and maybe JL but probably not a whole lot of other comic-book genre films.

With JL it could go either way. If Avengers approaches a billion I could see it encouraging WB to fast-track JL, but I could also see it scaring them away - for fear of a flop. It's hard to read as regards the possibility of a JL film.

 

[Octoberist]

I'm just thinking they should get Brad Bird ASAP.

 

[Raiden]

I'm just thinking they should get Brad Bird ASAP.

I thought Marvel should've hired him for one of their superhero movies as well, especially given the fact that he had worked with Pixar before, and in the movie that borrowed heavily from Fantastic Four. With WB, after TDKR and MOS there isn't any superhero movies that have been announced, so I'm not sure what project he could take on if he were hired by WB.

 

[rayc1971]

give brad bird the flash!

 

[KangConquers]

Sadly, I think WB is more likely to give The Flash the Bird than Brad Bird.

 

[HighFivingMF]

Sadly, I think WB is more likely to give The Flash the Bird than Brad Bird.

 

[DrCosmic]

Pretty much, considering I'm setting Hal Jordan up to be the pathos-driven villain. For Sinestro to have gone through the same motions would just make the Hal/Parallax story into redux.

Well that makes sense, but honestly, that's as bad as Johns' fanboy script, imho. Trying to cram 30 years of history into one or two films makes for bad writing, and I've yet to see an action film handle a face heel turn of their main character and have a franchise change hands, basically. All you'd accomplish is making the general audience feel like all the Hal fans did when he went Parallax the first time.

That's the nature of the business. It's difficult to keep the budget down on a property like this. The production budget was over 200M, even getting extra millions in the last few months before release because of all the CGI issues.

The budget including advertising for GL was reported to be 400 Million + ..... It was a collossal failure when taking that into account. Which is why, IMO, it has single-handedly buried all the DC superhero films that aren't Batman and Superman.

But GL, as an unknown superhero with a moderate-to-good filmmaking team was never going to make 5, 6, 700Million. 200M is pushing it. And if they had handled the property more wisely, they would have done things like relied on acting and storytelling rather than CGI. They would have been forced to limit the use of his ring, like with its charge for instance, making a tighter, tenser more focused story overall. Giving it that huge budget was just bad, bad business.

I'm just thinking they should get Brad Bird ASAP.

They should, but the problem is, they don't care.

And that's what is amazing about this thread. A lot of people coming in and thinking 'why can't WB get it together with their superheroes?' as if WB cares or notices.

 

[Tobias]

But GL, as an unknown superhero with a moderate-to-good filmmaking team was never going to make 5, 6, 700Million. 200M is pushing it. And if they had handled the property more wisely, they would have done things like relied on acting and storytelling rather than CGI. They would have been forced to limit the use of his ring, like with its charge for instance, making a tighter, tenser more focused story overall. Giving it that huge budget was just bad, bad business.



They should, but the problem is, they don't care.

And that's what is amazing about this thread. A lot of people coming in and thinking 'why can't WB get it together with their superheroes?' as if WB cares or notices.

Ain't that the truth - WB doesn't care. It's a fact but it's not going to stop complaining by DC fanboys. Especially as they see Marvel hit one after another out of the park.

Until WB agreees to license some of these characters out or create a semi-autonomous subsidiary studio dedicated to developing DC properties nothing will change. Including complaining fanboys.

WB does not seem to be in a hurry to do either of the above - which I don't get as either would increase their revenue and add to the bottom line. Isn't that what it is all about?

All we can hope for is a JL film and a rebooted Batman franchise over the remainder of the decade.

It is what it is - sadly.

 

[DrCosmic]

Indeed. What I think was mentioned earlier is that WB *did* create an semi-autonomous studio in DC Entertainment, under the leadership of Geoff Johns, and gave them all the money they could possibly need, and they failed. Utterly.

So what should they do next?

 

[Tobias]

Indeed. What I think was mentioned earlier is that WB *did* create an semi-autonomous studio in DC Entertainment, under the leadership of Geoff Johns, and gave them all the money they could possibly need, and they failed. Utterly.

So what should they do next?

DCE is not a studio, it can't raise money to produce films, it has no say over what film is or is not made. It's basically a glorified consulting group to WB. One that has proved inept and basically irrelevant.

I am referring to a situation such as Disney and Marvel. Two seperate studios with different foci. Disney owns Marvel but, to their credit, is letting Marvel be a truly semi-autonomous entity.

What next?

DC Studios. WB shifts all the super-hero film making power to this new studio. Say for a decade. At that point they could re-evaluate the relationship.

In the meantime DC Studios can make any of their properties into a film or licesne out those properties (for a limited time) to other studios.

Bring in top talent and have that 10 year re-evaluation milestone out there. Providing an incentive for DC Studios get it right. As Marvel is doing. Their track record is impressive. Not perfect but something I bet WB wish it had under it's umbrella.

 

[Airwings]

DrCosmic: Green Lantern was not completely unknown. He's a top tier in DC, in their big 5.

 

[DrCosmic]

That's a good point, DCE can't raise it's own money. They definitely had tremendous influence on GL being made, though, consultants or otherwise.

I don't see why WB would put their billion dollar Batman franchise with an unproven studio for ten years. So it'd be a studio for superheroes other than Batman, I guess? It's a solid plan, but it lacks... punch. The only way it could get punch is if Avengers makes a tremendous amount of money. Otherwise they're just an okay movie studio putting out okay films that make okay money. WB can do that just fine with any action film.

 

[The Guard]

In terms of the situation between Disney and Marvel...that definitely matters.

Warner Brothers' quarterly net income seems to be in the 600-800 million. Whereas Disney's appears to be in the 8-10 billion range.

 

[DrCosmic]

DrCosmic: Green Lantern was not completely unknown. He's a top tier in DC, in their big 5.

I think Onion said it best.
[YT]qRrCIvw8DRQ[/YT]

In real life, Robin and Supergirl are more popular and profitable than Green Lantern by far. The only people who knew who Hal Jordan was are comics fans. Even the 'unknown' Iron Man had a 90s cartoon.

 

[DrCosmic]

In terms of the situation between Disney and Marvel...that definitely matters.

Warner Brothers' quarterly net income seems to be in the 600-800 million. Whereas Disney's appears to be in the 8-10 billion range.

Wow. I was thinking earlier how Disney already has multiple independent studios in its stable, like Pixar - thus establishing precedent - whereas WB does not. The difference in their operating level probably explains that.

 

[Tobias]

That's a good point, DCE can't raise it's own money. They definitely had tremendous influence on GL being made, though, consultants or otherwise.

I don't see why WB would put their billion dollar Batman franchise with an unproven studio for ten years. So it'd be a studio for superheroes other than Batman, I guess? It's a solid plan, but it lacks... punch. The only way it could get punch is if Avengers makes a tremendous amount of money. Otherwise they're just an okay movie studio putting out okay films that make okay money. WB can do that just fine with any action film.

I am sure WB would keep the Bats franchise and JL. Those are the only films I see them doing after 2013 for a decade or so.

But that leaves a DC Studio with - Captain Marvel - done right it could be big, Flash, WW and a ton of others. Don't forget that IronMan was an unknown character to the GP but along with Spidey and Bats is one of the 3 by far most successful superhero film franchises of all time.

Plus, when it's your money you tend to be very careful how you spend it. Marvel is known to be very frugal with it's film budgets but you'd never know it from the final products. They squezze everything they can out of each budgeted dollar. It forces a discipline which is good for the final product.

Look at WB's GL and especially SR. Moeny blown for little real on-screen impact. SR was one of the most expensive films ever yet visually is among the most un-impressive superhero films of the past decade.

Punch? You create a new studio, given them a ten year mandate to make beaucoup bucks and given them the DC library (excluding Batman and a team JL film). Bring in a top-notch film honcho to lead it. That is all the punch you need. The DC staple is full of potentially very lucrative franchises. It's just that none of them have been tried and won't under a single WB only umbrella.

 

[Raiden]

I am sure WB would keep the Bats franchise and JL. Those are the only films I see them doing after 2013 for a decade or so.

But that leaves a DC Studio with - Captain Marvel - done right it could be big, Flash, WW and a ton of others. Don't forget that IronMan was an unknown character to the GP but along with Spidey and Bats is one of the 3 by far most successful superhero film franchises of all time.

Punch? You create a new studio, given them a ten year mandate to make beaucoup bucks and given them the DC library (excluding Batman and a team JL film). Bring in a top-notch film honcho to lead it. That is all the punch you need. The DC staple is full of potentially very lucrative franchises. It's just that none of them have been tried and won't under a single WB only umbrella.

The differences between Marvel Studios and this proposal for a DC Studio are firstly Marvel Studios have had successes under their belt even before the Disney acquisition, such as Iron Man, so I think Disney is content to leave them as autonomous company under their wings for future film development. Also, Disney perceives Marvel very different than how WB sees DC, because Disney wanted to branch out to the young men demographics (because Disney's brand already has the children and young girls' markets cornered), so they want Marvel to "do their things" because Disney doesn't have alot of experiences attracting guys to their products.

On the other hand, WB pretty much treats DC as just another unit in their company, and they haven't spent alot of attention or resources to try to maximize the DC brand. DC superhero movies have had to obey WB's business plan of having only a handful of tentpole films a year, so except for Nolan's Batman trilogy WB hasn't bothered to make many movies under the superhero genre. The few times that they had, they were disappointed with the results (Catwoman, Superman Returns, and the recent Green Lantern for instance). Plus, the creation of the DC Entertainment unit was basically a joke, because they are just a consulting unit and have no input on DC's biggest property, the Batman franchise.

I think after MOS has concluded, aside from a Batman reboot there's no guarantee that WB would bother to make more superhero movies, except for maybe JL but that depends on the success of The Avengers and their perception of that success. JL could be a safer gamble than doing other solo movies, because if it makes alot of money WB can use it as a launching pad for other projects, such as WW and Flash. If it doesn't, then WB can just shelf it like they do with other movies that sank to oblivion.

 

[Tobias]

The differences between Marvel Studios and this proposal for a DC Studio are firstly Marvel Studios have had successes under their belt even before the Disney acquisition, such as Iron Man, so I think Disney is content to leave them as autonomous company under their wings for future film development. Also, Disney perceives Marvel very different than how WB sees DC, because Disney wanted to branch out to the young men demographics (because Disney's brand already has the children and young girls' markets cornered), so they want Marvel to "do their things" because Disney doesn't have alot of experiences attracting guys to their products.

On the other hand, WB pretty much treats DC as just another unit in their company, and they haven't spent alot of attention or resources to try to maximize the DC brand. DC superhero movies have had to obey WB's business plan of having only a handful of tentpole films a year, so except for Nolan's Batman trilogy WB hasn't bothered to make many movies under the superhero genre. The few times that they had, they were disappointed with the results (Catwoman, Superman Returns, and the recent Green Lantern for instance). Plus, the creation of the DC Entertainment unit was basically a joke, because they are just a consulting unit and have no input on DC's biggest property, the Batman franchise.

I think after MOS has concluded, aside from a Batman reboot there's no guarantee that WB would bother to make more superhero movies, except for maybe JL but that depends on the success of The Avengers and their perception of that success. JL could be a safer gamble than doing other solo movies, because if it makes alot of money WB can use it as a launching pad for other projects, such as WW and Flash. If it doesn't, then WB can just shelf it like they do with other movies that sank to oblivion.

I generally agree. After MOS in 2013 all we will see from WB is the rebooted Batman for sure and if we are lucky a JL film. That's it. Batman and maybe JL.

Truth is WB is slowly imploding as a studio. Not seeing what Disney sees, not adapting like Disney is.

WB reminds me of Eastman Kodak which failed to improvise 15 years ago and is now filing for bankruptcy and selling off their patents.

The top-down one model fits all aproach no longer works. Even MicroSoft is reorgainizing and creating semi-autonomous units. They had gotten too big. As is WB.

Someone quoted the profits for Disney and WB and they are way going in Disney's direction.

Disney knew they were not doing well at attracting young males and so they bought Marvel and left Marvel alone to do what it knows how to do and which Disney does not.

Ultimately WB is going to have to go through a re-org. The longer they wait the more their ultimate fate could be sealed.

In any case a part of that reorg will have to be an autonomous DC Studios -(or whatever you want to call it.

Till that day the only sure superhero films we will see from WB are Batman.