Where did DC/WB go wrong? - Part 1

[BestGirl]

WB should do a Superman/Batman movie first and then have that lead into a JL movie

If I were them, I wouldn't even bother with a JL movie. A WF movie would probably cost less, be easier to write and make just as much money.

 

[roach]

If I were them, I wouldn't even bother with a JL movie. A WF movie would probably cost less, be easier to write and make just as much money.

Not doing a JL movie would be stupid.
Yes they shouldn't do it because of Avengers.
However the people that are going insane over Avengers will sell their souls to see Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman leading the rest against some major threat.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

If I were them, I wouldn't even bother with a JL movie. A WF movie would probably cost less, be easier to write and make just as much money.

This, just because Id rather see a WF movie than JL.

 

[roach]

i'd rather see both

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Not doing a JL movie would be stupid.
Yes they shouldn't do it because of Avengers.
However the people that are going insane over Avengers will sell their souls to see Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman leading the rest against some major threat.

It's going to look like a rip. To quote Ricky Bobby, "If you ain't first, you're last."


Besides, there's more ways to imitate the continuity we see in comics than making a JLA film.

 

[roach]

It's going to look like a rip. To quote Ricky Bobby, "If you ain't first, you're last."


Besides, there's more ways to imitate the continuity we see in comics than making a JLA film.

so by that logic every superhero movie is a rip of the first superhero movie

Christopher Nolan made a Bat-movie after Tim Burton's and we all know how that turned out

 

[HighFivingMF]

Avengers was a rip of Justice League in the first place. They'd be even.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

so by that logic every superhero movie is a rip of the first superhero movie

Christopher Nolan made a Bat-movie after Tim Burton's and we all know how that turned out

Nolan waited until the Bat movies had become a joke and rebooted them.


If you're only hook is that" look, it's all of them together!" Then yeah, it's a rip for one. No one cares how influential John Carter is on every sci-fi made in the last 100 years. People will have become attached to the Avengers and the individual team members. Slapping WW and the rest onto Bats and Supes with no previous attachment is insane.

And two, you're downplaying how much effort Marvel put into building their universe by just putting the JL together. Marvel took five years to put this together.

 

[roach]

Nolan waited until the Bat movies had become a joke and rebooted them.


If you're only hook is that" look, it's all of them together!" Then yeah, it's a rip for one. No one cares how influential John Carter is on every sci-fi made in the last 100 years. People will have become attached to the Avengers and the individual team members. Slapping WW and the rest onto Bats and Supes with no previous attachment is insane.

And two, you're downplaying how much effort Marvel put into building their universe by just putting the JL together. Marvel took five years to put this together.

People are already attached to Superman and Batman.

and I am not downplaying anyones effort.
Dont underestimate the power of "Its all of them together." Thats pretty much Avengers marketing boiled down.

 

[jmc]

The elite group are those that can make 500 million or some would argue the cutoff is really 600 million.

Can Thor2 make 500 million? I think it will. Will it make 600 million? I doubt it. So depending on where one comes down on the 500/600 million divide Thor may not make the big time.

If we go with 600 million as the cutoff there are really very few super-hero films that can do that.

Bats, Spidey, Ironman and TA.

JL will be able to do it and I believe GL will be right there when it is done right.

Other than those 5 I don't think any other comic film can come close to doing 600 million.

There will always be the outlier as IronMan once was.

I think there is a sleeper second tier character waiting to make the big-time in the form of Shazaam. The jury is out on that of course.

Aside from the 5 above-metionned, all other comic franchises are second tier at best and 3rd tier at worst.

I don't think it's quite as simple as putting a dollar figure on it, you've got to consider the actual cultural impact the character has made as well. I think for a franchise to become a genuine elite film franchise one of two things needs to happen in its favour, either the franchise already has big name recognition going for it which is an automatic head start or the lead actor's performance is so good it becomes synonymous with the franchise. Iron Man is a good example of the latter as is something like Pirates of the Caribbean. Thing is with those franchises is that as soon as you take away Depp and RDJ those films are never going to be the same, you can't just replace those guys coz you're going to get totally different films, their performances elevated otherwise simple stories that captured the public's attention. Conversely with films like Thor, Cap Am, Hulk and GL nothing really stands out with the lead actors in those films other than they gave solid performances, but not memorable ones, they are easily replaceable. I was very naive in thinking you could replicated IM success with any tier 2 character but in retrospect over the last 4 years it's become much more apparent that IM was more a fluke than a formula, pure lightning in a bottle.

Characters like Batman and Spider-man I believe are at a level now where the foundations for both are strong and can survive long into the future on film, if any two comic book character can whether a bad storm I think it's very much these two. Superman still has the name recognition but needs a great film to fully cement his place, Returns wasn't awful but it wasn't what the character needed. Wolverine and to a lesser extent X-men I think can continue as long as there is effort by Fox to make the movies good, FC was a good start and hopefully the next Wolverine film is further improvement. IM I think is going to hit a hurdle once RDJ moves on, I'm not entirely ruling it out as remaining a top tier character but it's going to be very difficult for the next guy who plays Tony Stark to replace RDJ, but by then a Bond like scenario could be in place so who knows, I'm calling that one 50/50. All other characters below that though I believe will struggle to whether a bad storm if it hits them, and that's probably why WB is gun shy about characters like FL, WW and AQM and is probably why Marvel have been overly cautious with their films.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

People are already attached to Superman and Batman.

and I am not downplaying anyones effort.
Dont underestimate the power of "Its all of them together." Thats pretty much Avengers marketing boiled down.

Bats is in great shape. Superman, not so much, and GL is DOA with the general audience.


All of the Avengers movies have done okay and Hulk is being played by an entirely new person.

Combining all the good will towards the individual franchises is why Avengers can play the "all together" card so well.

Look what happened with X-Men FC and what happens when people become discontent with the product after Wolverine and X3.

Marvel is on an upswing and DC is flatlined/slight downswing at best. The same playbook won't work.

 

[metaphysician]

I think you underestimate the influence of Hemsworth and Hiddleston especially; I think they will pretty soon be as irreplaceable as Thor and Loki as RDJ is as Iron Man.

That said, one factor being overlooked: merchandising. You compare various comic book movies with Hunger Games. . . and while Hunger Games will make more money relative to its cost, I bet it won't sell anywhere near as many action figures and t-shirts and such.

 

[KalMart]

Hmm, I fail to see why this would make them more deserving of being made into movies before some comic book character.

We're talking away from big-time blockbusters. Essentially, non-tentpole comic material doesn't need more help getting greenlit because not as many of them have been getting shelved in comparison to good ground-up film scripts. That's part of cinema looking within to change the emphasis on big money-makers. It's like comparatively 4 out of 7 proposed smaller comic stories got made, but only 7 out of 23 original film scripts. And comics can still have a life as their original comics, it's not a given that becoming a film is their ultimate goal in life...whereas film scripts can become nothing else. The latter needs more attention. Obviously, if some graphic novel really inspires some filmmaker and they want to make it into a movie, they're still going to push for that anyway. Again, comics aren't what've been suffering more from blockbuster-itis. Look at it as improving domestic issues and local economy before foreign trade.

If we are talking abut marketing and big bucks...then absolutely go for comic names, and book names, games, cartoons, and anything else that has some brand recognition. All the more importance in a more vast and diluted entertainment landscape. But if we want to see more lesser-known, content-driven comic-based stories make it to film....they need to first improve an atmosphere that will facilitate smaller, more critical projects like that...and it has to start from within the greater number of less-commercial original film projects that have met the shelves. Hence, domestic issues first.

 

[jmc]

I think you underestimate the influence of Hemsworth and Hiddleston especially; I think they will pretty soon be as irreplaceable as Thor and Loki as RDJ is as Iron Man.

In what sense though? What did they really bring to the table that any decent actor couldn't have also brought?

 

[KalMart]

I think Thor has yet to be irreplaceable frankly.

 

[jmc]

I'll just clarify what I wrote above, I for some reason mistook Hiddletson for Evans (don't ask why). I will say in regards to him he was the best thing about Thor but at the same time I don't think Loki was really elevated to iconic villain status on the back of the performance. In fact I believe the villain area is where DC characters have an edge over the Marvel counterparts for film.

 

[chiefchirpa]

I'll just clarify what I wrote above, I for some reason mistook Hiddletson for Evans (don't ask why). I will say in regards to him he was the best thing about Thor but at the same time I don't think Loki was really elevated to iconic villain status on the back of the performance. In fact I believe the villain area is where DC characters have an edge over the Marvel counterparts for film.

Just because one single act... er character: the Joker.

Other than that, I think the Magnetos' and Loki's performances are a bracket below Ledger's Joker. WB keep bringing Lex Luthors in several Superman films but I don't think they give much interaction impact with Superman. Sinestro is wasted, as wasted as Weaving's Red Skull.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Just because one single act... er character: the Joker.

Other than that, I think the Magnetos' and Loki's performances are a bracket below Ledger's Joker. WB keep bringing Lex Luthors in several Superman films but I don't think they give much interaction impact with Superman. Sinestro is wasted, as wasted as Weaving's Red Skull.

Strong's Sinestro wasn't wasted, he was underutilized. Weaving's Red Skull, on the other hand, was wasted... completely.

Liam Neeson as Ra's Al Ghul
Tom Hardy as Bane (I'm THAT confident)
Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor
Terrence Stamp as General Zod
John Hurt as High Chancellor Sulter
Tim Pigott-Smith as Peter Creedy
Matthew Goode as Adrian Veidt

 

[metaphysician]

Given that Superman 1 and 2 weren't actually produced by Warner Brothers studio, I think giving WB credit for them is dubious, even aside from the "30 years ago" element. Also, when you have to pad the list with non-superhero films. . .

In terms of contemporary DC film villains, you basically have Ledger as the Joker. Everyone else is no better than many of their Marvel counterparts to date.

 

[HighFivingMF]

Given that Superman 1 and 2 weren't actually produced by Warner Brothers studio, I think giving WB credit for them is dubious, even aside from the "30 years ago" element. Also, when you have to pad the list with non-superhero films. . .

In terms of contemporary DC film villains, you basically have Ledger as the Joker. Everyone else is no better than many of their Marvel counterparts to date.

It's not padding. They're DC movies.

Which is why I'd like to add Jude Law and Daniel Craig from Road to Perdition to the list.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

It's not padding. They're DC movies.

Which is why I'd like to add Jude Law and Daniel Craig from Road to Perdition to the list.

Exactly. By those standards, I guess we should also not count Ian's and Michael's Magneto considering they were both brought to us by 20th Century Fox, not Marvel Studios.

Ed Harris was also great from A History of Violence.

 

[The Morningstar]

Yea but if we wanna talk in terms of superheroes, they don't count.

And wasn't Jude Law's character created for the film anyway?

I'd also say Ozy was the worst thing in Watchmen. Not that the performance was bad, but because the character was completely wrong. Soon as you saw him you could tell he was a villain, or at least shady. Ozy was meant to be the golden boy, the Captain America, the Superman. That's what made his reveal at the end all the more shocking.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Yea but if we wanna talk in terms of superheroes, they don't count.

Superhero-wise, yeah they don't count.

And wasn't Jude Law's character created for the film anyway?

That I'm not so certain on. I'll have to watch the film again.

I'd also say Ozy was the worst thing in Watchmen. Not that the performance was bad, but because the character was completely wrong. Soon as you saw him you could tell he was a villain, or at least shady. Ozy was meant to be the golden boy, the Captain America, the Superman. That's what made his reveal at the end all the more shocking.

I wouldn't say so. The audience viewed him as arrogant, smug, egotistical and homosexual, not shady.

 

[The Morningstar]

I don't think so. A lot of criticism of the film is aimed squarely at Ozy. He just came across as this overly polite, but shady schemer as soon as i saw him. Like his politeness was over compensating.

He's supposed to be like Cap or Superman. A pure golden boy, that was the intention of Moore. I love the film, but that was a clear mistake by Snyder i think.

 

[metaphysician]

Fair point regarding comparisons, but even if you ignore that the early Superman movies were made by a different studio. . . they were still 30 years ago. That long a time is such that you can't really draw much of anything useful from their existence, because the people at DC are different, the people at all the movie studios are different, the audience is different. . . there is basically no continuity.

Whereas, by contrast, there is a common creative cadre at Marvel Studios that bears continuity from Iron Man to the present. There's also a similar creative cadre at WB surrounding Chris Nolan. Likewise at Sony and Fox, to varying extents ( though I suspect there is very little of it, re: the Spider-man franchise by now ). Even in those cases, though, at least your talking about an audience that is a lot more similar to the one of now, then the audience of 1979.