Where did DC/WB go wrong? - Part 1

[Mr. Immortal]

I'm like pages and pages too late but I wanted to respond to the insinuation that MCU films are ''safe''. It's definitely true, but only to an extent. The film content itself, sure, though that's certainly not a knock on those movies since 99.9% of all movies attempt that.

Iron Man and Hulk in particular, were very easy to adapt since Iron Man doesn't require too big a suspension of disbelief and audiences are very familiar with Hulk.

But credit should be given where it's due, Thor and Captain America were extremely ballsy projects that could have easily collapsed on themselves. Thor is difficult to adapt on so many levels, way too many to list, but they did a fantastic job with it. Likewise, Captain America was made in an age where society and younger people especially are obsessed with dark, tortured anti-heroes. Marvel Studios took a serious chance investing in those movies and then doing Avengers ahead of time. If you look at the decisions they made involving all those, on paper you'd probably have to say they were terrible decisions but they made it work by providing a quality product.

As far as DC goes, you can see how badly it can be done by looking at Green Lantern. If you think this movie is ''safe'' enough to be consumed by a casual viewer, you're thinking too much like a comic fan. The sterile power point presentation at the beginning, Reynolds' disembodied head flying through space, a disgusting but not cool or menacing villain with a grotesque head, an amorphous CG villain, not giving Hal any redeeming qualities for what feels like eternity, the (mostly) limp music, the list goes on and on.

On the upside, Marvel Studios' success should really give the DC properties on how to succeed with these hard-to-adapt characters. The Wonder Woman animated movie definitely made me a big believer in a live action film. Someone also said The Flash would be DC's equivalent to Iron Man in terms of adaptability, I could get behind that.

Anyway, cliffs: Marvel Studios is actually a perfect combination of ''safe'' and ''risky'' when it comes to the film making and business ventures. DC, hopefully, can learn from that.

 

[jmc]

I'll give you Thor coz that it is a trickier and riskier concept but Cap America was just so vanilla from beginning to end. Still I firmly believe those films were never given the opportunity to reach their full potential, I stand by the statements I've made before that those films feel handcuffed and that quite frankly is what ****s me the most. There's nothing worse than middle of the road movies were nothing is really wrong but at the same time nothing really sticks out as being great either. A film like The Town is a great example of that type of movie as well, you leave thinking 'that was some good film making....and yet it wasn't a good movie all around'.

 

[Mr. Immortal]

I'll give you Thor coz that it is a trickier and riskier concept but Cap America was just so vanilla from beginning to end. Still I firmly believe those films were never given the opportunity to reach their full potential, I stand by the statements I've made before that those films feel handcuffed and that quite frankly is what ****s me the most. There's nothing worse than middle of the road movies were nothing is really wrong but at the same time nothing really sticks out as being great either. A film like The Town is a great example of that type of movie as well, you leave thinking 'that was some good film making....and yet it wasn't a good movie all around'.

One thing I was trying to say that I don't think I did a good job of... because of the risky nature of those properties, it was imperative that they ''balance'' the riskier aspects with more grounded approaches in other areas. I feel DC should use the same caution when doing their hard-to-adapt properties.

 

[chamber-music]

I think people are too hard on Thor and Captain America. They were safe movies but they were intoducing audiences to the characters and their world. If you went to far from the mainstream those characters franchises might never of got off the ground.

Kevin Feige has said now that they have established the characters in the sequels they are going to push the boat out and try some different stuff.

Shane Black has said he wants to make Iron Man 3 a Tom Clancy like Thiller.

Thor 2 looks like it might go more into the mythology realm side of things.

Chris Evans has talked about possibly making Cap 2 a Political thriller.

 

[metaphysician]

Which is something to note: even if Avengers can be appreciated standalone, the audience still needed to be introduced to the characters, so that they'd actually have a reason to care. Doing a team movie wherein everyone on it has no real GA exposure? Bad idea.

Which is why DC needs to do setup movies: the only JLA characters with useful* GA exposure are Batman and Superman. . . and Batman's large Nolan-established fanbase isn't necessarily transferable ( note how many people applaud Dark Knight on the grounds that its more a crime drama than a super hero story ).

* Yes, Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman's GA exposure is decades out of date, and really about as relevant as the Adam West Batman.

 

[BestGirl]

I think people are too hard on Thor and Captain America. They were safe movies but they were intoducing audiences to the characters and their world. If you went to far from the mainstream those characters franchises might never of got off the ground.

Kevin Feige has said now that they have established the characters in the sequels they are going to push the boat out and try some different stuff.

Shane Black has said he wants to make Iron Man 3 a Tom Clancy like Thiller.

Thor 2 looks like it might go more into the mythology realm side of things.

Chris Evans has talked about possibly making Cap 2 a Political thriller.

That's a fair point. I was just thinking something similar earlier today. I'm curious to see whether any of those big sequel ideas come off, though. IM2 had some promising potential plotlines that went nowhere.

 

[jmc]

I think people are too hard on Thor and Captain America. They were safe movies but they were intoducing audiences to the characters and their world. If you went to far from the mainstream those characters franchises might never of got off the ground.

Kevin Feige has said now that they have established the characters in the sequels they are going to push the boat out and try some different stuff.

Shane Black has said he wants to make Iron Man 3 a Tom Clancy like Thiller.

Thor 2 looks like it might go more into the mythology realm side of things.

Chris Evans has talked about possibly making Cap 2 a Political thriller.

Their choice of directors and having release dates before everything is set makes me think the exact opposite.

 

[jmc]

One thing I was trying to say that I don't think I did a good job of... because of the risky nature of those properties, it was imperative that they ''balance'' the riskier aspects with more grounded approaches in other areas. I feel DC should use the same caution when doing their hard-to-adapt properties.

Couldn't agree less, either go all out or don't bother making the movie.

 

[TheVileOne]

You mean like how DCE never has?

 

[jmc]

What's DCE got to do with anything?

 

[TheVileOne]

How ever since this new initiative that basically copied Marvel Studios' model has really accomplished very little. And I don't think Diane Nelson has accomplished what she said she would set out to do.

 

[HighFivingMF]

DC Entertainment was never meant to be a movie studio.

 

[CConn]

No, it was just meant to unify all of the DC properties throughout their various media outlets; comics, TV and film.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

That's a fair point. I was just thinking something similar earlier today. I'm curious to see whether any of those big sequel ideas come off, though. IM2 had some promising potential plotlines that went nowhere.

That's because they rushed the script and the script was pretty bad so they improved many dialogue scenes.

 

[jmc]

How ever since this new initiative that basically copied Marvel Studios' model has really accomplished very little. And I don't think Diane Nelson has accomplished what she said she would set out to do.

It was never meant to copy Marvel's model.

 

[HighFivingMF]

It was never meant to copy Marvel's model.

He's on one of his complain about DC kicks. Whenever news about Green Lantern hit he'd show up. Now that news about Lobo hit he's at it again.

 

[cronosred]

I think people are too hard on Thor and Captain America. They were safe movies but they were intoducing audiences to the characters and their world. If you went to far from the mainstream those characters franchises might never of got off the ground.
[/COLOR]

I find it interesting that when it comes to flaws in Marvel films people are supposed to be understanding and forgiving unlike when it comes to DC films. It's ok for Thor to take place primarily on Earth and play it safe but not Green Lantern.

 

[Micromind]

I find it interesting that when it comes to flaws in Marvel films people are supposed to be understanding and forgiving unlike when it comes to DC films. It's ok for Thor to take place primarily on Earth and play it safe but not Green Lantern.

It is sad but true, many movie critics think this way.

 

[ElMariachi]

I find it interesting that when it comes to flaws in Marvel films people are supposed to be understanding and forgiving unlike when it comes to DC films. It's ok for Thor to take place primarily on Earth and play it safe but not Green Lantern.

Green Lantern was sold on the outer space cop concept. Thor, the fish out of water story. For that reason, Green Lantern was a big disapointment to alot of people.

Critics were forgiving of Thor because it was charming, funny, and well acted. It was better than GL in every way.

 

[metaphysician]

Also, Thor took place "mostly" on Earth in the sense that about half of it happened on Earth. Given the marketing and promotion, having about half of it take place on Asgard actually was a lot *better* a ratio than most people expected.

Whereas, by contrast, nearly all the time spent on Oa and in space, was shown in the trailers and commercials. Green Lantern *really was* almost entirely set on Earth.

 

[Docker2.0]

Which is something to note: even if Avengers can be appreciated standalone, the audience still needed to be introduced to the characters, so that they'd actually have a reason to care. Doing a team movie wherein everyone on it has no real GA exposure? Bad idea.

Which is why DC needs to do setup movies: the only JLA characters with useful* GA exposure are Batman and Superman. . . and Batman's large Nolan-established fanbase isn't necessarily transferable ( note how many people applaud Dark Knight on the grounds that its more a crime drama than a super hero story ).

* Yes, Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman's GA exposure is decades out of date, and really about as relevant as the Adam West Batman.

I agree 1000%! That's why I think they should tie DCU together because it maximizes their potential. TDK is really a crime drama, and not so much the real Batman but they could build on that. WW hasn't really been seen since the 70's before a lot of moviegoers were even born which is why I don't understand people put her in DC's trinity when she has really has so little exposure. Green Lantern has been more exposed than she has. DC has really exposed 2 characters to their max and that's Bat's and Supes, which is why I say do a World's Finest movie first that leads into a JLA movie. If you do a stand alone JLA movie without an A list villian, and by that I mean Darkseid, I don't think it could make as much as it could if you built it up. I honestly don't think TDK would not have made as much as it could if the Joker was not in it. Ledger's performance was amazing and I wanted to see him more than I wanted to see Batman which says a lot! I don't have a good feeling about TDKR, although it will make money, I don't think it's going to do as well as TDK. I also think the GA will expect more from DC, now that Marvel has upped the ante with the Avengers, meaning a shared universe. I know the GA don't really know the difference between the two companies but I'm sure they'll wonder why Spiderman doesn't show up in a Superman after credit scene, if you get my point.

 

[Docker2.0]

No, it was just meant to unify all of the DC properties throughout their various media outlets; comics, TV and film.

You are right, but they really haven't done a thing since they were created.

 

[CConn]

You are right, but they really haven't done a thing since they were created.

Yes, they have.

They've rebooted the entire DC Universe, started up a line of a half dozen digital-first comic series, they've produced multiple animated series in GL and Beware the Batman, they're producing multiple live action TV shows like Human Target and the proposed Arrow, they've developed multiple video games in Arkham City, DCU Universe Online, and Lego Batman 2, and in films have produced Watchmen, Jonah Hex, GL, RED and Man of Steel.

 

[Docker2.0]

Yes, they have.

They've rebooted the entire DC Universe, started up a line of a half dozen digital-first comic series, they've produced multiple animated series in GL and Beware the Batman, they're producing multiple live action TV shows like Human Target and the proposed Arrow, they've developed multiple video games in Arkham City, DCU Universe Online, and Lego Batman 2, and in films have produced Watchmen, Jonah Hex, GL, RED and Man of Steel.

Well I meant movies actually. But when it comes to what they've done in that department, it's no different than what WB has always done, with the exception of GL. They always seem to take some of the obscure characters or Vertigo titles and make movies but yet seem to stay away from their big guns other than Bats and Supes. I've heard references that although they are all under WB that they are under different divisions of the company and that's why they can't meet or whatever, but I don't understand why WW who hasn't been seen live action since the mid 70's can't get a tid bit of exposure or something even in a now cancelled Smallville show.

 

[CConn]

But, that's what we were saying. They're not really meant to do anything differently than WB has. They're just meant to unite all of the DC properties under one banner.