Where did DC/WB go wrong? - Part 1

[metaphysician]

Think of how long Superman 5 spent in preproduction hell. Think of how long the Green Lantern project languished before its eventual creation. Think of how long Wonder Woman. . . oh, wait, Wonder Woman never did get made.

WB has a track record of glacial development of comic book properties.

 

[The Morningstar]

GL was in development hell? I thought it was fast tracked?

 

[CConn]

It's like these two have created a plane of existence all of their own. Where up is down and left is Henry Cavill.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Think of how long Superman 5 spent in preproduction hell. Think of how long the Green Lantern project languished before its eventual creation. Think of how long Wonder Woman. . . oh, wait, Wonder Woman never did get made.

WB has a track record of glacial development of comic book properties.

And yet BB, TDK, Watchmen, V for Vendetta, The Fountain (especially) and Constantine ended up being just fine.

 

[ЯɘvlveR]

personally, i don't think they'd need to reboot anything.

if what wb is worried about is about making money, then they need to understand that in order to make money, they need to spend the money. give nolan whatever he wants, whether he wants to direct, produce or both, whatever, give him whatever he wants. give bale all the money he wants. bring back ryan reynolds (since imo he along with mark strong were the best things out of GL) and have green lantern replace wonder woman in trinity, in a film based around sinestro, and his corps, have luthor and hugo strange try to stick their ***** in it somehow, then have the justice league assemble at the end of the film. bale cavill and reynolds is plenty of star power.

spoilers in white text, don't know how true it is, but i don't want to ruin in it for anyone.

I'd heard of one of TDKR spoilers that bane destroys gotham, so maybe after gotham is destroyed, bruce has time to cameo in MOS. have clark get to metropolis after gotham is destroyed, and after the parallax situation in coast city. and there you have your eater eggs.

 

[Cain]

And yet BB, TDK, Watchmen, V for Vendetta, The Fountain (especially) and Constantine ended up being just fine.

^ Yeah and aside from those movies it took less than 6 years to get something going on a new Supes movie but ok fine for the sake of an upcoming argument let's say it was cause of the legal **** going on with Supes. Then what about Jonah Hex or The Losers? and they got another movie based on the Frank Miller 300 comic book franchise in production soon; I mean really though.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

^ Yeah and aside from those movies it took less than 6 years to get something going on a new Supes movie but ok fine for the sake of an upcoming argument let's say it was cause of the legal **** going on with Supes. Then what about Jonah Hex or The Losers? and they got another movie based on the Frank Miller 300 comic book franchise in production soon; I mean really though.

Point?

It's not to say that WB had no intention of making a sequel to Superman Returns or a reboot/relaunch inbetween those years. A sequel, at one point and time, was considered probable.

WB interviewed a few directors and listened to their ideas after it was announced that no sequel was being sought (involving Singer and Routh).

It wasn't until Goyer and Nolan presented their idea and concept for a 'modernized' Superman to executives in early 2010 that WB finally green-lit the MoS project.

 

[Cain]

Point?

It's not to say that WB had no intention of making a sequel to Superman Returns or a reboot/relaunch inbetween those years. A sequel, at one point and time, was considered probable.

WB interviewed a few directors and listened to their ideas after it was announced that no sequel was being sought (involving Singer and Routh).

It wasn't until Goyer and Nolan presented their idea and concept for a 'modernized' Superman to executives in early 2010 that WB finally green-lit the MoS project.

Guy you seem to be having reading comprehension issues here. WTF are you explaining the Superman development process to me as if I asked you for it or something?

I'm saying that including those movies you listed it also took them less then a decade to get the ball rolling with Superman again. Meaning they weren't just sitting on a comic property again and got on it ASAP. I was agreeing with your counter to that other guy that was talking about WB taking decades to put out comic based features.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Guy you seem to be having reading comprehension issues here. WTF are you explaining the Superman development process to me as if I asked you for it or something?

I'm saying that including those movies you listed it also took them less then a decade to get the ball rolling with Superman again. Meaning they weren't just sitting on a comic property again and got on it ASAP. I was agreeing with your counter to that other guy that was talking about WB taking decades to put out comic based features.

I sincerely apologize. I clearly misread your statement.

In reality though, I'm kinda pleased that WB releases one CBM a year (on average), and that DCE is not Marvel Studios. The genre would quickly grow dull if 5-6 CBMs were released every year.

Next year belongs to Superman, but I'm hoping 2014 belongs to The Flash. WB should take their time with it and not repeat Green Lantern's mistakes. First things first, sign a high-quality writer to write the script.

 

[Destructus86]

I think the problem with DC is that they don't seem to have enough control over their properties in movie form.

Yes, Batman did well...but it's not REALLY Batman...it's someones take on it...a very different take from the comics.

Green Lantern was just treated badly in every aspect...they had a director with no real vision for the material.

Superman I have high hopes for.

 

[gugumugats]

I think the problem with DC is that they don't seem to have enough control over their properties in movie form.

Yes, Batman did well...but it's not REALLY Batman...it's someones take on it...a very different take from the comics.

Green Lantern was just treated badly in every aspect...they had a director with no real vision for the material.

Superman I have high hopes for.

Didn't Geoff Johns/DCE have a hand in Green Lantern?

 

[Tobias]

Disney took a huge loss on John Carter and it actually caused the price of Disney shares to drop earlier this week.

Unlike WB, Disney has been upfront about Carter's failure. It may be a first for a studio to acknowledge a film's failure while it was still in theatres.

Compare this to GL and SR which WB initially refused to admit had both severly underperformed.

This won't stop WB from making big-budget DC films but Carter's failure reinforces WB's strategy to put DC films out at a very slow pace. The downside potential is just too huge.

It's frustrating for fans but makes complete economic sense if you are WB.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.co...r-disney-says/

 

[jmc]

Disney took a huge loss on John Carter and it actually caused the price of Disney shares to drop earlier this week.

Unlike WB, Disney has been upfront about Carter's failure. It may be a first for a studio to acknowledge a film's failure while it was still in theatres.

Compare this to GL and SR which WB initially refused to admit had both severly underperformed.

This won't stop WB from making big-budget DC films but Carter's failure reinforces WB's strategy to put DC films out at a very slow pace. The downside potential is just too huge.

It's frustrating for fans but makes complete economic sense if you are WB.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.co...r-disney-says/

Thing is with movies of this size the people owning the stock want assurances, I read a post from some person who owns Disney stock saying Disney have to avoid taking risks like this as they're too big a company to do so. People like this are who studios end up answering too.

 

[metaphysician]

I'm not worried, because honestly, John Carter *was* a stupid risk. Not the IP, mind, but the "lets give total control and 250M to an unproven live action director." Whereas the other high budget Disney projects have good arguments in favor of the risks involved.

As for "not enough creative control", yes, Geoff Johns was heavily involved in Green Lantern. Arguably, he was part of why it failed ( too much bad narration, forced inclusion of bizarre and unmarketable concepts like "the color of fear and will", etc ). To the broader question, though, I don't have a good answer. Marvel Studios produces good product, yes, but at the time they started, I would have bet anything that involving the creative minds at Marvel would be a train wreck, given their actual writing at the time.

 

[CConn]

I'm sorry, but Disney had to know John Carter wasn't going to be successful with the amount of marketing it had and it's release date in the movie deadzone of March.

 

[Tobias]

Hunger Games is a perfect example of why WB basically ignores it's DC properties aside from Batman.

HG almost beat TDK and Spidey 3 in it's Friday take. And those were sequels.

It is going to be huge in a way Thor, Cap and even the first IronMan were not. And those were all very successful films.

Relisitcally, aside from Batman, JL and GL, no DC property can come anywhere near close close to these kind of numbers.

On top of which DC WB properties cost at least 140 - 150 million to make. Compared to HG's 75 million. It'd be wiser for WB to purchase book rights (Hunger Games, Twilight) and start a new franchise that way.

IMO the success of HG is going to if anything slow down how fast WB rolls out more DC properties. I'd bet WB is going to put more energy into finding the next Twilight or HG rather than fussing too much with DC stuff. It's all risk/reward.

JL is the exception and it is predicated on TA.

 

[CConn]

Hearing you talk business strategies is like hearing a 10yo talk about thermodynamics.

 

[solidsnake86]

Hearing you talk business strategies is like hearing a 10yo talk about thermodynamics.

Well that 10yo may be a genius

 

[Kyle Rayner]

Hunger Games is a perfect example of why WB basically ignores it's DC properties aside from Batman.

HG almost beat TDK and Spidey 3 in it's Friday take. And those were sequels.

It is going to be huge in a way Thor, Cap and even the first IronMan were not. And those were all very successful films.

Relisitcally, aside from Batman, JL and GL, no DC property can come anywhere near close close to these kind of numbers.

On top of which DC WB properties cost at least 140 - 150 million to make. Compared to HG's 75 million. It'd be wiser for WB to purchase book rights (Hunger Games, Twilight) and start a new franchise that way.

IMO the success of HG is going to if anything slow down how fast WB rolls out more DC properties. I'd bet WB is going to put more energy into finding the next Twilight or HG rather than fussing too much with DC stuff. It's all risk/reward.

JL is the exception and it is predicated on TA.

The truth is that WB likes to play save, they do not move foward. They have taken some chances with other DC properties but they did not do right to the characters nor DC Comics' writers and artist that have made DC Comics a stable.

Marvel has taken more chances than DC and their film studios has not been around that long. Had Sony loss Spiderman, Marvel would probably concentrate on him. Good thing that it did not happen and opted for an Iron Man film.

WB safe place is always going to be Batman and Superman, regardless of how bad the film does they wait for a few years (decades) and come up with another one. That's just how is always going to be. That old mentality HAS TO GO! All DC Characters are known to comic book fans, in order to expose them to a greater audience they need to push themselves. They need to treat their properties as is the last film that they will put out.

Going thru other venues like Hunger Games will help them financially, but sooner or later they will run out of ideas to make films and DC Comics is by far their biggest story library that they have.

 

[matrix_ghost]

Thing is with movies of this size the people owning the stock want assurances, I read a post from some person who owns Disney stock saying Disney have to avoid taking risks like this as they're too big a company to do so. People like this are who studios end up answering too.

Every company has an obligation to report the state of things to it's shareholders.
THing is though that while Green Lantern bombed , Harry Potter more then compensated those losses.
That something that Disney didn't have. For the first quarter of 2012 they haven't any had a huge hit . Which is why , i guess , they are so frank about John Carter's failure.
I do think that if DIsney has Hunger Games , they wouldn't be talking about losses etc.

 

[Cain]

Marvel Studios is a sub company of a sub company who's priority is media adaptations of their superhero universe. Most importantly cinematic ones. DC doesn't have that luxury. They don't have the power to setup and develop their own independent films because they don't have an independent division to do it through.

Since WB gets first dibs on the movie rights and DC has no leverage in hollywood like Marvel does through their independent studio you have to be patient. DC can't "lease" their properties without going through Time Warner and Time Warner will not allow that knowing that they have their own movie studio that could distribute and produce these features.

There is no "DC Studios" so they don't have the resources and so far DC Entertainment is completely unproven when it comes to cinematic adaptations. With that in mind how could you credibly critique WB for not having the output of a Marvel Studios?

If cinematic superhero franchises was WB's main priority they probably would be pumping out as much as Marvel Studios is but they aren't. They have a greater scope of cinematic properties beyond superhero franchises.

For example this year so far they had two profitable joints in Journey 2 and Project X. Movies outside of the superhero subgenre. It's not like The Dark Knight Rises will be their bread and butter for 2012 on it's own. So why pursue more superhero ventures outside of 1 a year when you have other projects to tend to?

I mean in 2012 alone they have a few high profile releases coming up like Wrath of the Titans next weekend and Rock of Ages, The Great Gatsby and The Hobbit later in the year. You think they'll just stop all development on those other type of projects to prioritize on DC properties?

They're not going to reduce attention on potential assets to take the "risk" of placating to superhero movie fans only. That would be pretty stupid; especially when they have had no success with DC properties when they've tried in the past outside of Batman.

I say be grateful that they're at least contemplating making a Flash movie someday at this point.

 

[Cain]

Every company has an obligation to report the state of things to it's shareholders.
THing is though that while Green Lantern bombed , Harry Potter more then compensated those losses.
That something that Disney didn't have. For the first quarter of 2012 they haven't any had a huge hit . Which is why , i guess , they are so frank about John Carter's failure.
I do think that if DIsney has Hunger Games , they wouldn't be talking about losses etc.

Dude at the end of the day a loss in the hundreds of millions is STILL a loss in the hundreds of millions. No company no matter how lucrative wants to ever face losses like Dreamworks, WB and Disney recently did with Cowboys & Aliens, Green Lantern and John Carter.

 

[CConn]

Dude at the end of the day a loss in the hundreds of millions is STILL a loss in the hundreds of millions. No company no matter how lucrative wants to ever face losses like Dreamworks, WB and Disney recently did with Cowboys & Aliens, Green Lantern and John Carter.

That wasn't really his point.

I think his point was more than its acceptable for studios to take SOME chances as long as they have monster franchises to keep their profit margin up if the chance doesn't pay off.

It's not about them being fine with failure, it's about them being fine with trying new things. To a certain extent, of course.

 

[Cain]

That wasn't really his point.

I think his point was more than its acceptable for studios to take SOME chances as long as they have monster franchises to keep their profit margin up if the chance doesn't pay off.

It's not about them being fine with failure, it's about them being fine with trying new things. To a certain extent, of course.

Oh no I get what he means just fine. Allow me to clarify a bit. As you said they will only accept failure to a certain extent. Yes one giant money maker carrying the loss of a financial failure has occurred. However you can't expect a studio with an annual portfolio of projects to tip the scales more in favor of taking risks. It's just not a sensible formula when it comes to making money.

Sadly they do have to "play it safe" like so many proclaim in here because it's the only way to protect their own necks and keep their jobs. If you're a movie studio and have for example 12 big budget major pictures to release in a year it makes no sense to take risks with 4 of those thinking that the other 8 will even everything out just fine in the end. Because if those 4 bomb hugely it's just a much greater loss than taking the same risk on 1 project out of 12.

So with that in mind I definitely understand why WB would rather put out one big budget DC superhero based movie per year like GL last year the sure thing this summer and the new Superman next year. It's a healthier approach financially speaking. Besides it doesn't mean that they won't make anymore DC related movies on the side anyway.

They could release a big budget superhero tentpole and a more modestly budgeted one based on a DC Comics favorite in the same year. They could still take risks on characters that don't have the same mass appeal as their supes that way without getting migraine headaches in the end. Like they did with GL and the Hex movie last summer. Granted they could take much greater care in how they approach them from a quality stand point but I'm not talking about that here.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

I think the problem with DC is that they don't seem to have enough control over their properties in movie form.

Yes, Batman did well...but it's not REALLY Batman...it's someones take on it...a very different take from the comics.

Green Lantern was just treated badly in every aspect...they had a director with no real vision for the material.

Superman I have high hopes for.

Then clearly you've missed the concept of Batman. The character, and his universe, can be rendered and presented in various different ways. Batman is that diverse.