Where are the movies DC?

[dnno1]

I've already seen 2 marvel movies this year! FF and Ghost Rider. Yes, GR could have been better, but hey at least he got a movie. Where the hell is The Flash, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman? For Christ sake Marvel is giving every tom, dick, and harry in spandex a movie and what do the DC fans have? Singerman Returns and Batman Begins.

The WB and DC better step up their game in a BIG way because they're missing out on an incredible opportunity. Now this being said I don't want them to do some lame rush job on one of my favs (GL & Flash) then I'm left with something lame like "Catwoman in Name Only"

I just saw the Iron Man footage from comic con and it looks amazing. Somebody has got the formula, hire amazingly talented people who respect and understand the comics. The director actually hired a comic artist to help them get stuff right! Fantastic!

DC needs to get on the ball cause I'm soooooo ready for my Green Lantern movie already! Him and the Flash need some spotlight!

Its been discussed over and over here....DC isn't responsible for making movies because they they don't operate a film studio and are owned by one single studio called Warner Bros. The reason Marvel gets all their movies out is because they have their own production arm contracting with all the major studios and specifically dedicated to putting their characters on screen.
Although I'm sure people are about to get tired of the Marvel material....after Spider-Man 4 or 5 audiences will probably be bored. The rebooted Hulk and Iron Man are due next year, than all they need is Captain America. After that Marvel has been milked for all its worth for the time being. And after Chris Nolan is done with Batman and Bryan Singer with Superman, we'll definitely be over those franchises. That being said, WB really needs to quit lagging on the DC projects, because if they don't than the superhero film genre is gonna die out. Without Flash, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern or Aquaman flicks, the formula will lose popularity. DC has all those properties that are tailor-made movies, so if that fresh material continues to go nowhere, so will the superhero genre.

I know if they don't get a move on the Super Hero Cinema wave will be over and then what will we have? Nothing, except regrets and unfulfilled potential.

That's just it. This is just a trend where graphic novels are popular right now. Because of it Marvel is taking the risk and producing some of their films themselves (note the Universal still has an in on the distribution of "The Incredible Hulk" film). In theory the risk is lower than developing a brand new product (like Disney/Pixar's "Incredibles") because you have source material already developed, but you still are sticking your neck out there. DC on the other hand is owned by a company that already has a film department that has over a hundred years experience in the business. This means that they know better than to take risks or better yet know when to take them. And who said that DC wasn't in on the production of these films? Their name is credited on a number of these films as co-producer. So what if the genere dies out. I am sure that DC will still be there making graphic novels, comics, and DTV animated films. Where will Marvel be?

 

[Docker2.0]

Where the hell have you been? I didnt bash their movies I simply want DC heroes to pick up the pace and make more.

Touchy much bruh? I didn't question your motive, but when this thread is made you will ALWAYS here the "I prefer quality over quantity" and bash Marvel movies cuase they are making to many. Trust me, this thread will lead to it, they ALWAYS do and this thread has been made like 20 times.

P.S. Lighten up bruh! "where the hell have I been?" You are taking this to serious.

 

[The Batman]

Oh really? So Bryan singer hired a comic book artist to help him get the costumes of Superman and the X-men right? No. I didn't think so.

no...but nolan has. you act as if just because favereau and co are using comic artists that ALL marvel films do that.

nice try at being a smartass though

 

[Spirited Away]

DC on the other hand is owned by a company that already has a film department that has over a hundred years experience in the business. This means that they know better than to take risks or better yet know when to take them.

But every Marvel movie has been profitable. Even Elektra (although just barely, taking DVD sales into account).

If WB knows a thing or two about movie making, they would realise this. Instead, they're putting extra funding into DTV live-action movies, TV adaptations and cartoons.

More DC Comic characters see the light of day in Smallville, than anywhere else. Once that's over, it's essentially the death of all B-list characters.

So what if the genere dies out. I am sure that DC will still be there making graphic novels, comics, and DTV animated films. Where will Marvel be?

In New York, making graphic novels, comics, and DTV animated films?

 

[kedrell]

That's just it. This is just a trend where graphic novels are popular right now.

I seriously disagree. The reason graphic novels and such have become popular is because of the relatively new availability of technology to see these visions realized in film, rather than it simple being a fad of the moment. SH/CBM's are going to be around as long as sci-fi movies or westerns and such. The newer frontier from our perspective will be their translation to live action TV but with film quality effects and writing. That's where I see SH's eventually finding a permanent home due to the medium's ability to handle serialized material. But sh movies will still be around when they get a really good idea for a story.

 

[REDophile]

Instead of ragging on Marvel for quantity over quality and what not, it makes more sense to bash WB for their mishandling of the DC brand. This goes back before we even heard about any Marvel movies. We got the unsuccesful Superman III and IV before Batman came in 1989. Instead of making a WW movie of the '90s, probably the third most notable DC superhero and should be next in line, we get Batman Forever and the crapfest that was Batman and Robin.....than instead of WW, Flash, GL or even Aquaman we get the god awful Catwoman. Okay so its easier for Marvel movies to come out since they can use Fox, Sony, Universal or Paramount and DC only has WB or sometimes New Line, but WB has put some effort into blockbuster DC movies. They've just made really STUPID decisions....

 

[Spirited Away]

Not just Fox, Sony, Uni or Paramouth. Marvel are making their own productions.

DC should consider the same, imo.

 

[GL's Light]

Not just Fox, Sony, Uni or Paramouth. Marvel are making their own productions.

DC should consider the same, imo.

People really have a hard time grasping this concept: DC can't produce their own films. They are simply a publishing subsidiary of Time Warner. Warner Bros controls all film rights to DCU characters (although Shazam has been given to New Line, another Time Warner studio), and has complete control of when and if DC films are made.

Warners has certainly made some bad decisions with the DC brand in the past, and could do far more with it, but overall things have improved in the last few years in my view.

I also disagree with those who think there's a short window to capitalize on the superhero genre and then it's going to collapse. I think the genre's here to stay. It'll certainly rise and fall over time, sometimes with just one or two releases per year and other times coming back up to the current level, but capitalizing on these brands shouldn't be viewed as a short distance sprint.

 

[DarkSuperman]

Touchy much bruh? I didn't question your motive, but when this thread is made you will ALWAYS here the "I prefer quality over quantity" and bash Marvel movies cuase they are making to many. Trust me, this thread will lead to it, they ALWAYS do and this thread has been made like 20 times.

P.S. Lighten up bruh! "where the hell have I been?" You are taking this to serious.

HAHA, My apologies, I don't mean to come off as overly confrontational or bad tempered. I assure you there was no negative or angry hostility in my words, just sarcastic emphasis, my friend. Forgive me.

 

[dnno1]

But every Marvel movie has been profitable. Even Elektra (although just barely, taking DVD sales into account).

If WB knows a thing or two about movie making, they would realise this. Instead, they're putting extra funding into DTV live-action movies, TV adaptations and cartoons.

More DC Comic characters see the light of day in Smallville, than anywhere else. Once that's over, it's essentially the death of all B-list characters.

In New York, making graphic novels, comics, and DTV animated films?

Actually, if you want to count DVD sales, Elektra did do very well. According to IMDb Pro, Elektra made over $22 million in gross US video rentals in the first 9 weeks. Then again, Catwoman did much better. That film (according to the same source) made about $34 million in gross US video rentals over the same number of weeks (The film also did better at the box office). In any case, it is because of the box office results that you will probably not see sequels or restarts of those two films any time soon. I can't say that the box office results of "The Hulk, "The Punisher", "Daredevil", or "Ghost Rider" were anything to brag about either.

I think the WB knows what they are doing. They and DC know that comics and graphic novels are episodic and more suitable for a Television Series. That is why the Superman (live action TV and animated series) and Batman (animated series) franchises have been so successful in that venue. I also believe that they are shoring up their future in the DTV market by grooming a young crop of animators, and directors over at Warner Animation. Making movies is risky business. They cost a lot of money to produce and the odds are always against you (1 out of 10) to get your money back at the box office. That's probably why they are taking their time to get it right (it took Marvel almost 30 years to get to where they are now). Television on the other hand is not as risky and it builds your audience for future films.

 

[REDophile]

Since WB happens to own all the DC properties, they have a huge responsibility to the genre in terms of providing fresh material. Yes Marvel has its own film studio but they are running out of substance. Audiences are gonna be bored with SH films if all we continue to get are sequels to Superman, Batman and the same A-list Marvel franchises.

 

[DarkSuperman]

People really have a hard time grasping this concept: DC can't produce their own films. They are simply a publishing subsidiary of Time Warner. Warner Bros controls all film rights to DCU characters (although Shazam has been given to New Line, another Time Warner studio), and has complete control of when and if DC films are made.

What I want to know is what in the world would prompt DC to make that sort of deal with the WB? I mean if Marvel makes a mistake they're more than capable of saying "Whoops" then rebooting the franchise fresh.

As a hard core DC fan it's a little bit frustrating to see many of the marvel characters getting their time to shine in the cinematic limelight when my favorite DC characters seem to be subjected to mediocre and sub par installments. I can't help but wonder what sort of films or television shows we would have had to enjoy were DC in control of their own properties. Because let's face facts there are certain things that an old fart executive at the WB just doesn't understand like a person who has been in the comics industry since forever. Things he'd understand just can't be compromised on. DC needs to control their own properties and find their version of Avi Arad cause that man has been entertaining me since I was 12 and will probably continue to do so when I'm 52.

 

[DarkSuperman]

Since WB happens to own all the DC properties, they have a huge responsibility to the genre in terms of providing fresh material. Yes Marvel has its own film studio but they are running out of substance. Audiences are gonna be bored with SH films if all we continue to get are sequels to Superman, Batman and the same A-list Marvel franchises.

I don't think so. As long as stories continue to be exciting, engaging, and inventive. I don't Superheroes films will ever have a shelf life or expiration date. I mean, look at James Bond, he's a character that has had 28 Films...the latest of which the most successful of them all. There's no reason why Superman and Batman can't achieve that level of notoriety or longevity in their film careers as well.

In fact, I'm hoping that they do.

 

[GL's Light]

What I want to know is what in the world would prompt DC to make that sort of deal with the WB?

Warner Bros has owned DC since 1969. The idea that superhero properties could be made into big budget films wasn't even yet a twinkle in the Salkinds' eyes at that point.

 

[dnno1]

I seriously disagree. The reason graphic novels and such have become popular is because of the relatively new availability of technology to see these visions realized in film, rather than it simple being a fad of the moment. SH/CBM's are going to be around as long as sci-fi movies or westerns and such. The newer frontier from our perspective will be their translation to live action TV but with film quality effects and writing. That's where I see SH's eventually finding a permanent home due to the medium's ability to handle serialized material. But sh movies will still be around when they get a really good idea for a story.

It's a trend. 30 years ago there were advances in technology that made "Star Wars", "Star Trek", and "Superman: The Movie" very popular films. Those genres died out for a time and recently have come back. It can die out again. Once again genres come in phases.

 

[Spirited Away]

Actually, if you want to count DVD sales, Elektra did do very well. According to IMDb Pro, Elektra made over $165 million in gross US video rentals in the first 9 weeks. Then again, Catwoman did much better. That film (according to the same source) made about $260 million in gross US video rentals over the same number of weeks (The film also did better at the box office).

Didn't know that. I guess we probably will see DTV sequels at some point then.

I can't say that the box office results of "The Hulk, "The Punisher", "Daredevil", or "Ghost Rider" were anything to brag about either.

Hulk made $250 worldwide, which is pretty good (it made most its money from merchandising rights, over $300 million I believe).

Punisher did $55 million WW, which isn't that great, but I estimate DVD sales were high, hence the sequel/remake/whatever.

Daredevil did $180 million, which is good and sequel-able. Same for Ghost Rider, which made $230 million.

So whilst they're not massive profit-churners, they're still successful films.

 

[dnno1]

Didn't know that. I guess we probably will see DTV sequels at some point then.


Hulk made $250 worldwide, which is pretty good (it made most its money from merchandising rights, over $300 million I believe).

Punisher did $55 million WW, which isn't that great, but I estimate DVD sales were high, hence the sequel/remake/whatever.

Daredevil did $180 million, which is good and sequel-able. Same for Ghost Rider, which made $230 million.

So whilst they're not massive profit-churners, they're still successful films.

I'm really sorry. I had to correct myself. "Elektra" grossed $22 million in video rentals while "Catwoman" grossed $34 million in the same amount of weeks. I misread the data.

 

[Closerframe]

I've noticed Marvel owns the comicbook movie industry DC comics will come out with 1 or 2 movies a year. But they mostly focus on their graphic novels that dont get enough attention. I think DC needs to step their game up and not just focus on their main contenders Batman and Superman...

 

[TheComicbookKid]

To be fair to DC. They, at least, have graphic novels to develop. Marvel is seriously talking about developing Ant-Man or Iron Fist as movies that will, I guess, make any kind of money.

While I do hope DC, gets moving on the superhero side, they have options to develop material that we otherwise would only see in graphic novels. I've seen Flash on screen, in a decent way. WW certainly needs to be on the big screen, but I have seen her before also.

 

[Superman_]

Marvel is putting out all these movies because they don't want to have to tell the back stories to some heroes when they have the Avengers movie. I think it is dumb because at the same time it feels like Marvel is turning the public off to comic book movies with all these heroes who shouldn't even have a movie but its there money so they can do what ever they want. IMO DC has the right idea with only giving movies to Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, GL, and JLA.

 

[odiin]

The movies... are coming. Keep your panties on.

 

[BROOD5050]

A few months ago I posted something similar to what you posted and it was in reference to DC movies being notably absent from the theaters. However, I have to admit that my feelings were clouded at the time because I was jealous. Jealous because I am such a huge DC comic’s fan boy. I hated the fact that Marvel properties were getting their characters onto the big screen and DC wasn’t. Now my feelings have changed because I have seen “The ways of the Force” so to speak. After sing the junk that Marvel films vomited all over the screens this summer, I’m glad that DC comics and Warner Bros are taking there time. Marvel is selling out their characters for the all mighty buck just to produce two hours of crap that are very forgettable and lacks inspiration. I have come to a realization that just because you can turn a property into a film, it doesn’t mean that you should. Think about it, do we realy need to see an Ant Man and Magneto Movie?

 

[odiin]

A few months ago I posted something similar to what you posted and it was in reference to DC movies being notably absent from the theaters. However, I have to admit that my feelings were clouded at the time because I was jealous. Jealous because I am such a huge DC comic’s fan boy. I hated the fact that Marvel properties were getting their characters onto the big screen and DC wasn’t. Now my feelings have changed because I have seen “The ways of the Force” so to speak. After sing the junk that Marvel films vomited all over the screens this summer, I’m glad that DC comics and Warner Bros are taking there time. Marvel is selling out their characters for the all mighty buck just to produce two hours of crap that are very forgettable and lacks inspiration. I have come to a realization that just because you can turn a property into a film, it doesn’t mean that you should. Think about it, do we realy need to see an Ant Man and Magneto Movie?

Oh, you take that back right now. I agree with most of what you said but, Ant-Man is being directed by Edgar Freakin' Wright for crying out loud! Edgar "Shaun of the Dead" "Hot Fuzz" Freakin' Wright! That movie will leave the vast majority of movies marvel has put out in the dust. In fact if Marvel were to announce TODAY that they would be pushing back Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk by a year and they were going to start filming Ant-Man now for a 2008 release instead, I would ecstatic, and that's saying a lot because I am REALLY excited for both Iron Man and the Hulk.

 

[Jack Rabbit]

Quality, not quantity.

Marvel's churning out as many as they can, and look how most of them have turned out...

Daredevil.
HULK
Elektra
Ghost Rider
Spider-Man 3
X-Men 3
Blade Trinity

 

[Closerframe]

Quality, not quantity.

Marvel's churning out as many as they can, and look how most of them have turned out...

Daredevil.
HULK
Elektra
Ghost Rider
Spider-Man 3
X-Men 3
Blade Trinity

DC is no different

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Catwomen
Superman Returns
Batman and Robin
Batman Forever
Superman IV


Im not saying DC needs to become like Marvel and push out as many movies as they can I mean who the hell wants Stardust? I just wish The Flash and Wonder Woman would get out of development hell...