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

[rayc1971]

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.

not just batman man of steel looks like its going to be a hit!

 

[rhakeson]

Despite the plop of GL surely DC will recover; still heading to bright future (just more faith and optimism out there). A failure doesn’t mean the end; DC has already established name for many years.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

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.

I just think WB as a whole needs to re-think the way they approach their blockbusters, interfering and then throwing more money in when things go wrong just will not work.

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.



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.

Couldnt agree more with the bolded, $200 million is far too much a budget for the first in a new franchise about a character with hardly any public recognition, the budget should have been $150 max and the numbers it did make wouldnt have looked so bad.

 

[Hyden]

If they had just started on the right foot they could have pulled so much mileage out of GL, there are probably a good 7 or 8 Green Lantern films worth making just based on the John's era material alone.
Not high art, mind you, but material every bit as fun, intricate and dazzling as the Harry Potter films.
Oh Green Lantern, what an awful shame.

 

[chiefchirpa]

If they had just started on the right foot they could have pulled so much mileage out of GL, there are probably a good 7 or 8 Green Lantern films worth making just based on the John's era material alone.
Not high art, mind you, but material every bit as fun, intricate and dazzling as the Harry Potter films.
Oh Green Lantern, what an awful shame.

7-8 films from a comic book material? Hardly, not even a more realistic and believable Batman universe could make it without moviegoers getting bored.

 

[solidsnake86]

Only fans think 7-8 films is a good idea. Frankly the concepts get boring after two films, thats why good third movies are hard to come by. Its always the same thing in comic book films because they are constrained by what they can and can't do. New villain, explain there story, they destroy things or try to take over. Not to mention its hard to create a good character arc for the hero where they actually grow.

On top of all that the the villains are just not there with a lot of these heroes. Batman and spider-man have the deepest rogues gallery and people get sick of those films.

 

[Tobias]

Only fans think 7-8 films is a good idea. Frankly the concepts get boring after two films, thats why good third movies are hard to come by. Its always the same thing in comic book films because they are constrained by what they can and can't do. New villain, explain there story, they destroy things or try to take over. Not to mention its hard to create a good character arc for the hero where they actually grow.

On top of all that the the villains are just not there with a lot of these heroes. Batman and spider-man have the deepest rogues gallery and people get sick of those films.

Generally this is true but there are exceptions.

Expanding the scope beyond super-hero film, both James Bond and MI are franchises that are going to do 5, 6 or more films.

It's rare but among superheros Batman and Spiderman are two franchises that can go on idefinitely. With new actors and all.

The new Spiderman film looks like it is going to be huge. A sequel is already in the works and so there will be 6 all told and maybe 7 Spidey films over a 20 year period.

IMO a Batman reboot is going to happen ASAP so, even leaving aside the pre-Nolan stuff, that willl be 6 films in probably under 20 years.

Ironman? #3 looks great so it too may be able to go on indefinitely.

Beyond those three I don't see any super-hero franchise seen to date that can endure over 20 years.

In the future there may be more, but generally the large majority of these franchises, even if successful, are going to have a 3 film run at best IMO.

 

[solidsnake86]

Iron Man will live and die as a series with Downey JR. The guys a great actor. I think they last by having completely different takes on the character. Nolan's films are completely different from burtons and ditto for schumachers.

So the question becomes what direction can you take the new batman franchise, the rumours are that it will be more fantastical which is basically saying they're taking it back to the burton films.

Spider-man is a wait and see thing. Don't get me wrong the trailer looked great, but will it make money and will people care to see a rehash of the first movie with a new villain in green goblins place.

I like to see things improved upon but I'm not so sure others care, especially when the core elements are exactly the same. To me Raimi did a great job, I don't know if there is much left to explore besides changing things, such as mechanical webshooters, that are really inconsequential to the overall character. I hope I'm wrong though.

 

[Tobias]

Iron Man will live and die as a series with Downey JR. The guys a great actor. I think they last by having completely different takes on the character. Nolan's films are completely different from burtons and ditto for schumachers.

So the question becomes what direction can you take the new batman franchise, the rumours are that it will be more fantastical which is basically saying they're taking it back to the burton films.

Spider-man is a wait and see thing. Don't get me wrong the trailer looked great, but will it make money and will people care to see a rehash of the first movie with a new villain in green goblins place.

I like to see things improved upon but I'm not so sure others care, especially when the core elements are exactly the same. To me Raimi did a great job, I don't know if there is much left to explore besides changing things, such as mechanical webshooters, that are really inconsequential to the overall character. I hope I'm wrong though.

I don't totally disagree.

However, if Iron Man 3 turns out as good as it's looking believe me there will be a reboot.

Just as there will be with Batman despite the loss of Bale and Nolan.

Batman and Spiderman are the 2 very special franchises cause of their connection with the culture. My neighbor's 3 year old son saw a neighbor coming back from surfing on Sunday, still in his wetsuit, and said Spiderman!! Talk about setting a franchise up for the next generation!!

That's how engrained these 2 characters are. How integral to Americana.

Maybe Iron Man won't be able to do that. Maybe, among super-hero franchises, only Spiderman and Batman can do that. We just don't know.

Just as Bond has a never-ending series of tales to tell on the big-screen, I think Batman and Spiderman do too.

 

[Rockstar]

Haha. They won't reboot Iron Man. Avengers is going to be a bigtime franchise and RDJ is a central part of that.

Marvel Studios will cling to him, like Fox clings to Hugh Jackman.



The only reason they're rebooting Batman over at Warner Bros is because that's what Nolan wants, and he's still staying on as producer for the new Batman.

 

[DrCosmic]

If they had just started on the right foot they could have pulled so much mileage out of GL, there are probably a good 7 or 8 Green Lantern films worth making just based on the John's era material alone.
Not high art, mind you, but material every bit as fun, intricate and dazzling as the Harry Potter films.
Oh Green Lantern, what an awful shame.

Johns' series is a very, very bad precedent for movies, because it's all concept, no character, like the GL film, incidentally. The Harry Potter series has very rich characters, with little bits of concept and spectacle, and people love it.

While I don't like Kyle Rayner, his series, which was immersed in character development, would make for a better film. That's why even in insulting it, it was compared to successful films like Spider-Man and Star Wars.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Tobias, it pains me that you don't include Superman in your list of bankable franchises alongside Spidey, Batman and Iron Man. The original superhero deserves to stand in that echelon.

Of course, I understand why you don't include him. Supes hasn't been a true box office phenomenon since 1980. Hopefully Man of Steel changes that...

 

[jmc]

Haha. They won't reboot Iron Man. Avengers is going to be a bigtime franchise and RDJ is a central part of that.

Marvel Studios will cling to him, like Fox clings to Hugh Jackman.



The only reason they're rebooting Batman over at Warner Bros is because that's what Nolan wants, and he's still staying on as producer for the new Batman.

Granted he wants to continue doing superhero films.

 

[Red Mask]

Will DC be using that awful new logo for their movies?

 

[Boy Scout]

I certainly hope not.

 

[Anubis]

Of course they will.

 

[Boy Scout]

Sucks.

 

[Anubis]

Yeah well, thems the breaks kid.

 

[Boy Scout]

I'd feel slightly better about it if it were accompanied by the sound of a toilet flushing. That's always hilarious.

 

[Anubis]

That's a pretty good idea.

 

[Boy Scout]

They could make it into a positive thing if they wanted.

"The New DC. We're done with that old ****. And this time, we mean it."

 

[Raiden]

The new DC logo is great...if DC were an Xerox company.

 

[Micromind]

I feel that If DC just copies the line up for Marvel's characters for Avengers by just replacing each Marvel character with its closet possible DC equivalent for JL, it will look like this -

Nick Fury - Amanda Waller.
General Thaddeus Ross - General Sam Lane.

Hawkeye - Green Arrow.
Black Widow - Black Canary.
Iron Man - Steel.
Captain America - Guardian.
Thor - Captain Marvel.
Hulk - Captain Marvel (same as above.)

So, basically JL movie equivalent of Avengers is -Green Arrow, Black Canary, Steel (or Cyborg), Guardian and Captain marvel.

Now it is not the well known iconic team but if we consider it for a moment, it becomes apparent that this team looks more grounded and it will cost much less if this team is selected, but as it is not popular it will not do as well as Avengers will (I know many will say that each hero in Avengers team has got his own movie first) even if WB were to make a movie for each of thse characters and then make a JL movie consisting of this team up it will not do well, this is the advantage Marvel has.

WB will have to make a JL movie with their iconic characters and each of its members will have to appear in big budget movie, characters like Green lantern, Wonder Woman , Flash require big budgets.

 

[Tobias]

Best case scenario is WB does on DC/film per year with the exception of 2014:

This is a possible future for WB/DC films that I think is likely:

2015 - Flash
2016 - Batman rebooted #1
2017 - WW or GL reboot
2018 - Flash #2
2019 - Batman rebooted #2
2020 - JL

 

[Evil Twin]

Why are you excluding 2014 from WB's schedule? There's plenty of time for WB to put together, say, a Flash movie for filming in 2013. It's only February after all.