Where did DC/WB go wrong? - Part 1

[redfirebird2008]

WB's top DC priority is to get get Batman relaunched.

Because 7 Batman movies aren't enough. Geez. This is my biggest fear with the superhero genre. Oversaturation similar to what goes on in the horror genre.

 

[thalidomide]

Because 7 Batman movies aren't enough. Geez. This is my biggest fear with the superhero genre. Oversaturation similar to what goes on in the horror genre.

Well you can't deny the fact that Batman is the money maker of DC next to Superman. I could be wrong

 

[Tobias]

Well you can't deny the fact that Batman is the money maker of DC next to Superman. I could be wrong

No next to Superman. Batman is far and away the biggest DC moneymaker.

 

[DrCosmic]

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.

Sounds like wishful thinking. WB knew what Avengers was capable of when they said they were doing solo franchises. Avengers making 600Mil is not going to inspire WB to risk Batman's billion dollar franchise, especially if Superman also makes 600Mil.

 

[ElMariachi]

Iron Man 2 made 600 million without 3D. I cant imagine Avengers only making that much.

 

[metaphysician]

Sounds like wishful thinking. WB knew what Avengers was capable of when they said they were doing solo franchises. Avengers making 600Mil is not going to inspire WB to risk Batman's billion dollar franchise, especially if Superman also makes 600Mil.

Don't overestimate the power of "not invented here." It would not shock me at all if WB didn't take Avengers seriously until a few months ago.

Also, that's a hilarious low ball estimate for Avengers.

 

[rayc1971]

yea avengers will do 800mill to 1billion ww if man of steel is a hit then wb does jla and then launch flash and wonder woman solo films after.

 

[ЯɘvlveR]

Because 7 Batman movies aren't enough. Geez. This is my biggest fear with the superhero genre. Oversaturation similar to what goes on in the horror genre.

well it's what they will undoubtedly do. its what they did with returns, and its what snyder is doing with MOS.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

"They're safe".

Exactly. They are safe.

But here's what people who underestimate that are forgetting. They're staying true to the hearts of their character stories while making consistently good movies, something that WB, Fox, and Sony (post Spider-man 2 and even during) have all struggled with. If it's as easy as what Marvel naysayers do, why haven't those studios been consistently successful?

I'm not saying Marvel is perfect, but they're doing very well for themselves considering that they actually came out of nowhere with that success.

EDIT: Another problem with Marvel is that it could possibly start to feel more of an "assembly line" if they continue to roll out origin movies for characters

 

[The Guard]

Exactly. They are safe.

But here's what people who underestimate that are forgetting. They're staying true to the hearts of their character stories while making consistently good movies, something that WB, Fox, and Sony (post Spider-man 2 and even during) have all struggled with. If it's as easy as what Marvel naysayers do, why haven't those studios been consistently successful?

I don't think anyone's forgetting that fact. Those are two of the most apparent elements about the Marvel movies.

The other studios have had success without using Marvel's formula. SPIDER-MAN 3 made a ton of money, and THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN looks like a solid movie. X-MEN: THE LAST STAND made a ton of money. WOLVERINE made money. GHOST RIDER made money. X-MEN: FIRST CLASS made money. BATMAN BEGINS and THE DARK KNIGHT made a lot of money. SUPERMAN RETURNS wasn't safe enough, so it didn't draw that well, but it still made money. WATCHMEN wasn't a safe film, and it was a bit of a niche film, so it didn't draw that well. I find GREEN LANTERN's failure to be a bit of an anomaly, myself. It's a fairly safe movie, but it didn't make a lot of money. I don't think it's because audiences suddenly developed critiquing skills, so I can't say it's because it wasn't a good movie. It was a decent film. Personally, I think GREEN LANTERN suffered from a Summer of Superheroes and Action.

I'm not saying Marvel is perfect, but they're doing very well for themselves considering that they actually came out of nowhere with that success.

When you say they "came out of nowhere with that success", what are you referring to? The box office?

 

[Docker2.0]

Don't overestimate the power of "not invented here." It would not shock me at all if WB didn't take Avengers seriously until a few months ago.

Also, that's a hilarious low ball estimate for Avengers.

yea avengers will do 800mill to 1billion ww if man of steel is a hit then wb does jla and then launch flash and wonder woman solo films after.

Agree with both!! WB almost rushed out JL:M due to overreaction, so you mean to tell me with the combo of this being Nolan's final Batman and the Avengers doing well, WB won't rush anything?! It wouldn't surprise me if they really did call Whedon to do the movie.

 

[Spider - Man]

5.) Says who? You? Zod is an interesting villain, and the perfect one for an origin story.

6 Superman movies - villains:
1. Luthor
2. Luthor, Zod, Non and Ursa
3. Robert Vaughan and Richard Pryor (don;t even know their fictional names)
4. Luthor and 'Nuclear Man(?)'
5. Luthor
6. Zod and Faora

Come on!! Try something new!!

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I don't think anyone's forgetting that fact. Those are two of the most apparent elements about the Marvel movies.

The other studios have had success without using Marvel's formula. SPIDER-MAN 3 made a ton of money, and THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN looks like a solid movie. X-MEN: THE LAST STAND made a ton of money. WOLVERINE made money. GHOST RIDER made money. X-MEN: FIRST CLASS made money. BATMAN BEGINS and THE DARK KNIGHT made a lot of money. SUPERMAN RETURNS wasn't safe enough, so it didn't draw that well, but it still made money. WATCHMEN wasn't a safe film, and it was a bit of a niche film, so it didn't draw that well. I find GREEN LANTERN's failure to be a bit of an anomaly, myself. It's a fairly safe movie, but it didn't make a lot of money. I don't think it's because audiences suddenly developed critiquing skills, so I can't say it's because it wasn't a good movie. It was a decent film. Personally, I think GREEN LANTERN suffered from a Summer of Superheroes and Action.

I'm only counting respective superhero movies within their universe and I'm talking more from a critical point of view than from a financial. Spider-man 3, X3, and Wolverine were bad to awful movies. That's one of the two reasons why X-men First Class didn't do better. The other one being obvious.

So was Green Lantern, except Green Lantern didn't have great preceding movies to support their legs. Green Lantern suffered from being a bad movie. That's why it made significantly less than any of ther other Superhero movies and even action movies. It suffered from rewrites, poor acting, a continuously increasing budget, and worst of all, bad marketing.

People do forget because Marvel does get underestimated a lot around here. Of course, they certainly deserve some criticism, but not as much as some people put on them, especially when comparing their success at multiple superhero franchises in terms to others.

When you say they "came out of nowhere with that success", what are you referring to? The box office?

I meant as in establishing themself as a legit studio. No one thought Iron Man, a B list character in terms of pop culture would become an A lister after the movie. It gave them unprecedented success that they been somewhat successful at doing, but not fully successful.

 

[Docker2.0]

6 Superman movies - villains:
1. Luthor
2. Luthor, Zod, Non and Ursa
3. Robert Vaughan and Richard Pryor (don;t even know their fictional names)
4. Luthor and 'Nuclear Man(?)'
5. Luthor
6. Zod and Faora

Come on!! Try something new!!

I agree! I can't believe we have yet to see Darkseid or Brainiac on film. PS- with the Avengers announcing the other secret villian, they kind of beat DC to the punch with their matching counterpart.

 

[roach]

6 Superman movies - villains:
1. Luthor
2. Luthor, Zod, Non and Ursa
3. Robert Vaughan and Richard Pryor (don;t even know their fictional names)
4. Luthor and 'Nuclear Man(?)'
5. Luthor
6. Zod and Faora

Come on!! Try something new!!

Zod and Richard Pryor???

 

[Tobias]

6 Superman movies - villains:
1. Luthor
2. Luthor, Zod, Non and Ursa
3. Robert Vaughan and Richard Pryor (don;t even know their fictional names)
4. Luthor and 'Nuclear Man(?)'
5. Luthor
6. Zod and Faora

Come on!! Try something new!!

I think WB would have done something new/different had the film come about of their own volition and with the intent of relaunching.

However, given what happened, I think WB spent as little as possible to make MOS. Hence no grandiose expensive villains.

Even at that MOS is costing a lot. Around 175 million I think.

Superman is just too expensive to make.

 

[HighFivingMF]

Zod's cheap? With his powers, mo-cap suit, and a back-up?

 

[Duke]

6 Superman movies - villains:
1. Luthor
2. Luthor, Zod, Non and Ursa
3. Robert Vaughan and Richard Pryor (don;t even know their fictional names)
4. Luthor and 'Nuclear Man(?)'
5. Luthor
6. Zod and Faora

Come on!! Try something new!!

I agree. They need to try other Superman villians like Metallo, Brainiac, Darkside, Bizarro, Prankster, or Parasite.

 

[The Guard]

I'm only counting respective superhero movies within their universe and I'm talking more from a critical point of view than from a financial. Spider-man 3, X3, and Wolverine were bad to awful movies. That's one of the two reasons why X-men First Class didn't do better. The other one being obvious.

So was Green Lantern, except Green Lantern didn't have great preceding movies to support their legs. Green Lantern suffered from being a bad movie. That's why it made significantly less than any of ther other Superhero movies and even action movies. It suffered from rewrites, poor acting, a continuously increasing budget, and worst of all, bad marketing.

I don't agree with you that any of those movies were actually bad to awful. Well, maybe WOLVERINE.

But I would imagine that the reason FIRST CLASS did not do as well as the other X-Men movies was not because it was the sequel to two "bad" movies, which both made plenty of money (X-MEN: THE LAST STAND grossed $459 million worldwide, and WOLVERINE, which grossed $373 million worldwide) but rather because it was in the middle of a summer of big action and superhero movies, and actually had competition, and featured a new take on the material rather than the one audiences had grown accustomed to, and a cast of relative unknowns to general audiences instead of Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellan, Halle Berry, etc. While James McAvoy has a bit of a niche audience, Kevin Bacon and January Jones are hardly superstars. Jennifer Lawrence had some Oscar buzz, but she was still a relative unknown to most people, as were most the rest of the young cast, including Michael Fassbender at the time.

People do forget because Marvel does get underestimated a lot around here. Of course, they certainly deserve some criticism, but not as much as some people put on them, especially when comparing their success at multiple superhero franchises in terms to others.

Trust me. Almost no one forgets that Marvel tells relatively faithful, straightforward stories. Just because they don't talk about it doesn't mean they've forgotten it.

I meant as in establishing themself as a legit studio. No one thought Iron Man, a B list character in terms of pop culture would become an A lister after the movie. It gave them unprecedented success that they been somewhat successful at doing, but not fully successful.

Ah. To a point, yes.

I don't get the whining about Zod around here. We haven't seen Zod on film in over 30 years. Yes, it'd be nice to see something that we've never seen onscreen, but given the approach taken, he's essentially something new. He's one of Superman's greatest foes. He provides the superpowered action people so desperately craved, as well as a human (Kryptonian?) element to the villain.

 

[Tobias]

Disney Studios itself may now be getting into the Marvel superhero movie-making business.

From the animated side which is Disney's forte.

Rumor, check out the Marvel movie board, is that Disney may be planning an epic-style Marvel animated film.

Marvel and Disney seem to be doubling down but I have to beleive at some point we reach the saturation point on these kind of films. But for now Disney seems to want to get into the money-making cash cow that the Marvel characters have/are proving to be.

 

[metaphysician]

6 Superman movies - villains:
1. Luthor
2. Luthor, Zod, Non and Ursa
3. Robert Vaughan and Richard Pryor (don;t even know their fictional names)
4. Luthor and 'Nuclear Man(?)'
5. Luthor
6. Zod and Faora

Come on!! Try something new!!

I've said it before, I'll say it again- my own preference for a Superman trilogy:

1. Brainiac ( TAS version ), with Luther introduced but not yet antagonistic
2. Luther, with some version of Metallo or Bizarro or both used as muscle
3. Zod, with Superman and Luther forced into an uncomfortable alliance

 

[Ultimatehero]

They don't trust the people they hire and they don't go all out.

For example, they hired Kevin Smith then gave him all of these guidelines and things he had to use. Even with those restrictions, gotta admit, he gave them a really awesome script in my opinion. One that opened up the DC universe. At least they're trusting Nolan and Snyder completely with Superman it seems like.

The Jack Black 'Green Lantern' script? Yeah, gotta say - that script sucked. I've read it. But, personally I enjoyed the Berlanti/Green/Guggenheim 'Green Lantern' script. I have no idea what happened but the re-write after that? Literally destroyed the film beyond recognition. I think because they wanted to make it darker and this was more fantastical. Hell, it even gave them a possible connection with Superman in the script. If they would have just done that??? They'd have the start of the MARVEL universe - no kidding - they would have nailed it.

Then you've got them ditching Whedon's 'Wonder Woman' script. I'm in the biz. I've read the actual script. That version? Beyond rocked. Everything after? You could see DC only had budget in mind. The scope became much smaller and it became much more realistic.

Basically what I'm saying is - back in the day they should have trusted Kevin Smith. If you've read his Green Arrow comics, you know what you're in for. They should have trusted Whedon, he handed them a kick ass script and they refused it. Then they destroyed their 2008 'First draft' Green Lantern script and we got what we got. Basically where DC is concerned, I think where they went wrong is in only trusting Nolan and no one else. They've had wasted opportunity over wasted opportunity time and time again and usually the same thing happens. Marvel's taking risks, DC won't.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

6 Superman movies - villains:
1. Luthor
2. Luthor, Zod, Non and Ursa
3. Robert Vaughan and Richard Pryor (don;t even know their fictional names)
4. Luthor and 'Nuclear Man(?)'
5. Luthor
6. Zod and Faora

Come on!! Try something new!!

I agree, it's redundant. However, going for a villain like Metallo in an origin film doesn't fit or make sense. Furthermore, villains like Darkseid, Doomsday and Brainiac are the heavier threats (and cost more money to place in action). They belong in sequels, not origin films.

It'd be the equivalent of The Avengers of utilizing Thanos in the first installment.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I don't agree with you that any of those movies were actually bad to awful. Well, maybe WOLVERINE.

But I would imagine that the reason FIRST CLASS did not do as well as the other X-Men movies was not because it was the sequel to two "bad" movies, which both made plenty of money (X-MEN: THE LAST STAND grossed $459 million worldwide, and WOLVERINE, which grossed $373 million worldwide) but rather because it was in the middle of a summer of big action and superhero movies, and actually had competition, and featured a new take on the material rather than the one audiences had grown accustomed to, and a cast of relative unknowns to general audiences instead of Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellan, Halle Berry, etc. While James McAvoy has a bit of a niche audience, Kevin Bacon and January Jones are hardly superstars. Jennifer Lawrence had some Oscar buzz, but she was still a relative unknown to most people, as were most the rest of the young cast, including Michael Fassbender at the time.

Yes, that's the other reason. The lack of the starpower (especially Jackman) hurt the movie as well as two sequels that left a bad taste in audiences mouths, especially Wolverine.

 

[Breogan]

It wouldn't surprise me if they really did call Whedon to do the movie.

I don't know, they had him working on a Wonder Woman script forever, and apparently couldn't come to terms on how to approach the character for a movie

On a parallel note, from an interview http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=38239 here's Whedon's take on what makes Marvel's characters different from DC's and why they worked for launching an ensemble movie-
- "It's enormously difficult to take very disparate characters and make them work, and DC has a harder time of it than Marvel because their characters are from a bygone era where characters were bigger than we were," Whedon said. "They've amended that, but Marvel really cracked the code in terms of, 'Oh, they're just like us!' So a dose of that veracity that Marvel started with 'Iron Man', I think you need to use that as your base."

Is he right? Wrong?

Strangely enough, DC has one of the most not super but "human" characters in Batman. Is he from a bygone era? Or is the contemporary take on the character completely relevant for today? I think the later.

What Whedon describes as Marvel having a "base" to build on in Iron-Man, DC had in the Dark Knight, they just refused to recognized it as their base, and saw it and the rest of their franchise as separate.

I think this was their biggest mistake.