Where did DC/WB go wrong? - Part 1

[Mrs. Sawyer]

But that just reinforces my point. Singer DID have a very definitive vision for SR, and WB supported him. It's a shame it was met with lukewarm reaction, but that's really another matter entirely; the important aspect is that WB HAS supported talented directors with a strong creative visions. And that's always a good thing. Even when it doesn't work out too well - like in SR - you'll still end up with a better movie than the FFs and GRs of the world.

No, Campbell's not second rate. But it was never HIS projective. He was chosen to bring someone else's script and someone else's vision to the screen...and that was the first misstep for GL. Even if he's the wrong type of director, I'd suspect it would've been a much better movie if it was his idea, tailored to his directorial style.

I completely agree to everything, though a director doesn't have to write his own script to make a good movie, and they usually do bring someone else's vision to screen. I do understand what you're saying though. It's much harder to do so in Hollywood.

 

[Octoberist]

The problem with Campbell, as solid as he is, he is a journeyman director. A very successful journeyman director when he given the right movie. Otherwise, besides Bond, his resume is very..uneven.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

The problem with Campbell, as solid as he is, he is a journeyman director. A very successful journeyman director when he given the right movie. Otherwise, besides Bond, his resume is very..uneven.

That's virtually my opinion of him. He's always been hit or miss with me.

 

[The Guard]

Bah.

 

[The Guard]

Singer did not have a vision - he only had an interpretation of a vision - Donner's vision.

Giving Superman a child, having Lois being engaged to Richard with a child, Superman leaving Earth and returning years later, dealing with alienation...these things are part of a vision. This is not Donner's vision. It is Singer's. He used elements of Donner's vision. Historically popular elements like the crystalline tech/Fortress of Solitude, Jor-El's role in Superman's mission, and some character elements. Some of these, things that have made it into the comics over the years. But these were more or less background elements in the film. The lion's share of SUPERMAN RETURNS was Singer's vision and story.

 

[Duke]

Giving Superman a child, having Lois being engaged to Richard with a child, Superman leaving Earth and returning years later, dealing with alienation...these things are part of a vision. This is not Donner's vision. It is Singer's. He used elements of Donner's vision. Historically popular elements like the crystalline tech/Fortress of Solitude, Jor-El's role in Superman's mission, and some character elements. Some of these, things that have made it into the comics over the years. But these were more or less background elements in the film. The lion's share of SUPERMAN RETURNS was Singer's vision and story.

I have to agree with The Guard here on this. I really hated the fact that Superman had a child with Lois, because that would have defeated the whole mythos of Kal El being the sole survivor of Krypton (Supergirl being the exception). Plus the fact Lois got engaged with another guy & lack of action in the movie or slow pacing.

 

[Cain]

I have to agree with The Guard here on this. I really hated the fact that Superman had a child with Lois, because that would have defeated the whole mythos of Kal El being the sole survivor of Krypton (Supergirl being the exception). Plus the fact Lois got engaged with another guy & lack of action in the movie or slow pacing.

Yeah I didn't like that stuff either that and the fact that I liked Richard White a lot more than Supes in the end

To say that it wasn't Singer's vision though is crazy. It most definitely was the vision that he was always passionate about bringing to the world if he got a crack at a Superman movie. For better or worse.

Speaking of directors that weren't secondary and had a vision. I'd say George Miller is far from a second rate director and had a concrete vision for JLA (which has been impossible to find otherwise). It's a shame all the things that happened (writers strike, overbudget) that derailed that project.

The man was really passionate about returning to a full length live action format with a JL movie. Seemed even more especially excited to make an all new action movie so many years after Thunderdome and this time with mythological archetypes. In the end it just wasn't meant to be.

 

[roach]

I have to agree with The Guard here on this. I really hated the fact that Superman had a child with Lois, because that would have defeated the whole mythos of Kal El being the sole survivor of Krypton (Supergirl being the exception). Plus the fact Lois got engaged with another guy & lack of action in the movie or slow pacing.

Superman having a child doesn't defeat the mythos of Superman being the last survivor of Krypton. The boy is not a survivor of krypton...at best is a half kryptonian/half human.
You may have survived Titanic but having kids doesn't negate that

 

[third3ye]

To answer where WB went wrong with not having a JLA shared universe in play, this is simply how WB works and is a double-edged word for them. They run into film concepts guns blazing and typically without a very well thought-out process. The upside is that they are first to market and don't play the bureaucracy game that slows down production, but the downside is that they rush often and don't map out a long-term plan very effectively unless the written content is already laid out for them (i.e. Harry Potter).

 

[Duke]

Superman having a child doesn't defeat the mythos of Superman being the last survivor of Krypton. The boy is not a survivor of krypton...at best is a half kryptonian/half human.
You may have survived Titanic but having kids doesn't negate that

I'm sorry, but I kindly disagree. If there were other Kryptonians that survived the explosion of the planet or if Superman had any offspring, then what would be the point??? I just prefer Superman as a stand alone hero.

 

[metaphysician]

. . .that still makes no sense. Clark Kent having kids some day has no bearing on his origin. If anything, its a proper thematic counterpoint, going from last scion to progenitor of the new.

Anyway, as far as Superman Returns goes, I think part of the problem was the blending of visions: Donner's version and Singer's version were both present, but they weren't necessarily compatible.

 

[The Guard]

To answer where WB went wrong with not having a JLA shared universe in play, this is simply how WB works and is a double-edged word for them. They run into film concepts guns blazing and typically without a very well thought-out process.

What are you basing this on, superherowise?

 

[third3ye]

What are you basing this on, superherowise?

Not superhero specific, simply an industry observation of WB's production style and what they have (and haven't) accomplished with their DC franchise rights. I work for one of the competing studios and one of my best friends works at WB corporate and works directly with DC Entertainment. That's all I gotta say about the matter, take it for what it's worth but I'm not here to prove credibility beyond that.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Them not having a shared universe doesn't mean the standalone movies will be more successful, though I'm inclined to believe the second part of going in guns blazing as it looked like it with Green Lantern.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Them not having a shared universe doesn't mean the standalone movies will be more successful, though I'm inclined to believe the second part of going in guns blazing as it looked like it with Green Lantern.

Right. Guns blazing with blanks in the chamber.

 

[Breogan]

Schedule of green-light in production plans:

Marvel
Iron Man 3 5/3/13
The Wolverine 7/26/13
Thor 2 11/15/13
Captain America 2 4/4/14
Amazing Spider-man 2 5/2/14
Marvel Untitled 5/16/14
X-men First Class 2 (no date confirmed yet)

DC
Man of Steel 6/14/13

 

[Cain]

Schedule of green-light in production plans:

Marvel
Iron Man 3 5/3/13
The Wolverine 7/26/13
Thor 2 11/15/13
Captain America 2 4/4/14
Amazing Spider-man 2 5/2/14
Marvel Untitled 5/16/14
X-men First Class 2 (no date confirmed yet)

DC
Man of Steel 6/14/13

I see your point here but you're definitely over compensating in trying to prove it by including movies that aren't even being made BY Marvel Studios at all. Only 4 of those are valid pieces of evidence. I mean if that's the case you may as well include RED 2 there with MOS when it comes to DC in 2013.

 

[Hotwire]

I see your point here but you're definitely over compensating in trying to prove it by including movies that aren't even being made BY Marvel Studios at all. Only 4 of those are valid pieces of evidence. I mean if that's the case you may as well include RED 2 there with MOS when it comes to DC in 2013.

The point was, even though Marvel Studios isn't making all the movies, Marvel is getting a ton of exposure. Thus, they stay relevant. DC, however, keeps fading away.

 

[Mr. Immortal]

There's two reasons MCU films are so successful. (These are purely in terms of viewing experience, not box office numbers.)

1) They're tried and true story templates that have resonated with people time and time again. They focus on being great stories first, and great superhero stories second. (For the most part they've hit both of those out of the park each time.)

2) They approach the casual fan with tons of care, being sure not to alienate anyone and waste time.

The two reasons the MCU is successful are the same reasons a lot of DC movies have been spectacular failures.

The second Green Lantern opened up with an extended space sequence talking about the lore of the universe and Corps, I knew the movie had no chance. It's such an abysmal, insulting way to open a movie. Educating your audience point black at the start of the movie can work, but it has to be done so flawlessly and with subtlety that I'm shocked they even attempted it.

Compare that to Thor, which opens with a man getting decked by a truck in the middle of nowhere. And Cap, which opens with a shield being found frozen in the middle of the arctic. These are scenarios that a person can understand immediately. Instead of trying to educate the audience point blank they force the audience to ask questions and get interested. Where did that guy come from? Who is he? How did Cap get frozen? How much of the story will end up taking place in modern times?

That's just one example of many. Even using the example above, they actually re-tell the same information in the introduction to Hal Jordan later. So you as the audience are told the information twice for no real reason. It's not even relevant to the progression of Hal Jordan as a character and you're not given any reason to care about it.

These are writing concepts that anybody can understand and see why they work. Going back to Green Lantern (I admit that it isn't fair to pick on the ugly one), being familiar with Geoff Johns' work, I was worried when he became a producer on the movie. His comics are all continuity and lore filled and have very little to do with telling a compelling story. But I thought to myself ''There's no way they won't keep him on a leash, surely they'll look at all the successful superhero films as of late and do this right''.

I think that's really the crux of the matter right there. They've yet to find a balance of making a sterile big budget movie and making a geeky cult film that will keep people coming back for more. It's a delicate balance. Instead they're falling too far to one side and missing both audiences completely.

 

[Tobias]

The point was, even though Marvel Studios isn't making all the movies, Marvel is getting a ton of exposure. Thus, they stay relevant. DC, however, keeps fading away.

This is true. I don't doubt for a minute that if Marvel had Spiderman instead of SONY we'd see just as agressive a shecdule by Marvel in doing Spidey. The sequel is a quick 2 years out and was schedule almost a year ago.

I'm not sure WB will do a DC film for 2014. The deadline to announce/get something going is fast approaching if they want to make 2014.

Whether they skip 2014 or not I think Flash will be next.

Say Flash in 2015 and Batman in 2016. If Flash does well the question is will WB pull a Thor or Ironman and do a quick 2 year sequel turnaround - Flash 2 in 2017? It probably would be the safest thing for them given how these 2 year sequel turnarounds seem to be working for Marvel.

 

[chiefchirpa]

This is true. I don't doubt for a minute that if Marvel had Spiderman instead of SONY we'd see just as agressive a shecdule by Marvel in doing Spidey. The sequel is a quick 2 years out and was schedule almost a year ago.

I'm not sure WB will do a DC film for 2014. The deadline to announce/get something going is fast approaching if they want to make 2014.

Whether they skip 2014 or not I think Flash will be next.

Say Flash in 2015 and Batman in 2016. If Flash does well the question is will WB pull a Thor or Ironman and do a quick 2 year sequel turnaround - Flash 2 in 2017? It probably would be the safest thing for them given how these 2 year sequel turnarounds seem to be working for Marvel.

Flash can be cooked fast for 2014. WW for 2015. I don't care for another Batman - at least after JL.

 

[roach]

I'm sorry, but I kindly disagree. If there were other Kryptonians that survived the explosion of the planet or if Superman had any offspring, then what would be the point??? I just prefer Superman as a stand alone hero.

his origin doesn't change because someone else survives...hell we know Kal-El isn't the only survivor since Zod is in the new movie.

 

[The Guard]

1) They're tried and true story templates that have resonated with people time and time again. They focus on being great stories first, and great superhero stories second. (For the most part they've hit both of those out of the park each time.)

2) They approach the casual fan with tons of care, being sure not to alienate anyone and waste time.

The two reasons the MCU is successful are the same reasons a lot of DC movies have been spectacular failures.

"They're safe".

The second Green Lantern opened up with an extended space sequence talking about the lore of the universe and Corps, I knew the movie had no chance. It's such an abysmal, insulting way to open a movie. Educating your audience point black at the start of the movie can work, but it has to be done so flawlessly and with subtlety that I'm shocked they even attempted it.

You knew the movie had no chance because it opened with as short space sequence/voiceover to introduce an alien concept? Suggesting that a voiceover has to be subtle to work in context is ridiculous. Look at the opening of The Lord of The Rings. It's pure exposition. So are many other movies.

The Green Lantern film's opening functions to build myth. It's not meant to be a complete mystery. It's meant to introduce the scale of the story, and the villain, and it does.

Compare that to Thor, which opens with a man getting decked by a truck in the middle of nowhere.

Which everyone knows is Thor. Is there supposed to be some mystery to this moment? It's a chance to hook the audience with a few laughs and a slight mystery. The film then immediately goes to an extended space/voiceover sequence that is almost pure exposition.

And Cap, which opens with a shield being found frozen in the middle of the arctic. These are scenarios that a person can understand immediately.

I don't think the Green Lantern opening sequence was that hard to understand, frankly.

That's just one example of many. Even using the example above, they actually re-tell the same information in the introduction to Hal Jordan later. So you as the audience are told the information twice for no real reason. It's not even relevant to the progression of Hal Jordan as a character and you're not given any reason to care about it.

As I recall, the movie doesn't tell you the same thing twice. It shows you a different angle of it. The basic facts about the Green Lantern mythology are important. Hearing about them twice is hardly a weak approach to the concept. The only reason you should need to care about it is if you care about the concept.

 

[Tobias]

Flash can be cooked fast for 2014. WW for 2015. I don't care for another Batman - at least after JL.

Flash shouldn't be cooked too fast. WB has to get it right. If there is no DC annoucement by end of summer I'd guess WB will pass on 2014.

If Flash is a go for 2014 then my bet is Batman goes in the 2015 slot. WB's top DC priority is to get get Batman relaunched.

WW is risky. If Flash is a success say in 2014 I wouldn't be surprised to see a sequel in 2016. Probably a better bet than WW in 2016.

 

[Docker2.0]

If Avengers do the numbers that everyone is predicting, you can guarantee a rush job by the WB to do a JLA by 2014. With this being Nolan's final Batman movie, and the Avengers doing well, it's pretty much a done deal. You will hear the drums beating around August or September. Write down the dates.


But really, if I was WB, I'd pay Bale whatever he wants and have him and Cavill do a World's Finest movie. That alone would beat possibly anything a JLA would make and could possibly even challenge the Avengers if done right.