Where did DC/WB go wrong? - Part 1

[Cain]

Yeah I don't understand why it's such a difficult thing to comprehend.

 

[HighFivingMF]

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.

Because of legal issues where Wonder Woman and Wonder Girl couldn't appear in things where they weren't the main character. It's since been resolved.

 

[Docker2.0]

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.

Yeah but I doubt they actually can because again, for all the good Nolan has done, he's also against a shared universe which kind of makes no sense since it's his last Batman film. Plus, Nolan really isn't good for all of DC's characters. But that's just my opinion. I also think the WB suits are way to involved with DCE's day to day operations. They have to give them some leeway kind of like Disney does Marvel. If they don't, they'll lose billions because there are some goldmines they are sitting on. I still think Booster Gold would make a great tv show as well as a Green Arrow show that's done right. Here's hoping CW does it the right way.

 

[Docker2.0]

Because of legal issues where Wonder Woman and Wonder Girl couldn't appear in things where they weren't the main character. It's since been resolved.

I get that but that is kind of crazy thing to agree to. So the characters are basically collecting dust because they can't play second fiddle even on a tv show episode? That's why my hopes of WW movie doing well are not up very high. The character has been out of the limelight for decades so when they finally decide to bring her out, they are going to have a time trying to make her relevant again.

 

[CConn]

Yeah but I doubt they actually can because again, for all the good Nolan has done, he's also against a shared universe which kind of makes no sense since it's his last Batman film. Plus, Nolan really isn't good for all of DC's characters. But that's just my opinion. I also think the WB suits are way to involved with DCE's day to day operations. They have to give them some leeway kind of like Disney does Marvel. If they don't, they'll lose billions because there are some goldmines they are sitting on. I still think Booster Gold would make a great tv show as well as a Green Arrow show that's done right. Here's hoping CW does it the right way.

You're still not comprehending it.

 

[Tobias]

Summer should tell us if WB is shifting strategy a bit.

If no A lister film is announced by then for 2014 then maybe Lobo is WB's 2014 DC film.

It could make sense as a strategy.

Try a few promising B-list characters for a couple years leading up to the Batman relaunch. Skip A-lister films till after Batman and in light of the success or not of the B-listers.

Not saying that will happen. I still have to believe Flash in 2015, WW in 2016 and then the new Batman franchise launched in 2017.

 

[Docker2.0]

LOL at Lobo being B-list. It's hard to even call him C list. They are taking an obscure character with a complex, campy history and trying to make a movie out of it. Honestly, that's a bigger gamble than a "safe" Flash movie. Flash at least has his audience, Lobo has a small following but even the comic community isn't sold on him. I don't like Lobo as a solo film.

 

[The Guard]

Still, WB's made a lot of poor decisions when it comes to their DC stable. You'd figure they would be pursuing untried directors, see if they liked a certain DC character, and try to get the next Chris Nolan to revive GL or get WW up and running. Someone needs to slap sense into Robinov for not trying hard enough or looking out of the box... there's more than enough material in DC's vaults to sustain dozens of franchises and spin-offs.

Then perhaps its simply that there isn't enough money to only focus on superhero films.

I think fans are under the impression that WB has a billion dollars free every year to devote to the superhero cause. That's obviously not the case. These movies cost money. Lots and lots of money. WB has an entire slate of movies to consider beyond the DC Comics superheroes. I don't think The Flash, Wonder Woman and Aquaman haven't happened because WB doesn't want to make money. They may well have happened because they simply don't have that kind of money free, or because they can't take the risk with that kind of money based ont he rest of their film slate. It's a bit of a gray area I'm sure. GREEN LANTERN was their first lighter foray into lighter fare, and it essentially failed. That was less than a year ago. It's not unreasonable that this failure would give them pause about moving forward, and how to move forward, but projects are clearly still being worked on. They are still developing superhero TV shows and films. That shows they are interested in using the DC stable of characters.

I don't think WB will get it until the movie comes out, makes a lot of money, and then the light bulb goes off in Robinov's head. A standalone JL film would be a helluva better plan than a Lobo movie for 2014.

You don't honestly think that WB is making LOBO because they just don't get that JLA would be successful, right? They're probably testing the waters again with LOBO, which, as Ultimatehero said, has been in development for a long time, much like they did with JONAH HEX, and is a far less expensive film than a Justice League of solo hero film would be. Hopefully the execution will be better than HEX.

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.

How is THOR any more difficult to adapt than the average superhero or mythological concept?

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.

Except that, with movies like SPIDER-MAN and IRON MAN, Marvel had seen that the heroes didn't have to be dark and serious to be successful. Hinting at an eventual Avengers film isn't really a risk. Moving forward with it after Iron Man and Iron Man 2 was, as Captain America and Thor had not been hits yet, but it was a calculated risk, as the film was to feature Iron Man, which audiences apparently loved.

But there's nothing really terrible on paper about greenlighting a Captain America movie in this era of superhero films. There's nothing terrible about greenlighting a Thor film, or an Avengers movie.

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.

I wouldn't agree with perfect, but they've, thus far, found a decent balance. The DC films that haven't been as "safe" by and large hasn't been as financially successful (WATCHMEN, SUPERMAN RETURNS, and arguably GREEN LANTERN in a sense).

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.

No one's asking that CAPTAIN AMERICA and THOR receive no credit. But as films, and as superhero films, they are relatively safe movies. No amount of rationalizing the reasons for this will change that. The content is very straightforward, somewhat predictable, and safe in its character explorations.

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.

This would be fantastic. I'll believe it when I see it.

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.

There's nothing that says that an ensemble movies characters have to be introduced separately for audiences to have a reason to care.

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 ).

Batman is hugely popular. Superman is a very popular, very well known character, with two major films and SMALLVILLE giving it visibility.

And much like Hulk, Captain America and Thor...Wonder Woman, Aquaman, The Flash, and now Green Lantern are fairly well known concepts among general audiences. They do have exposure. Many of them are pop culture icons. Several of them have had shows and animated movies.

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.

Green Lantern is a space cop, but the movie was never sold that way. It was never sold as a movie about a space-based police officer. GREEN LANTERN was sold as a superhero origin story for Green Lantern, a movie about a spacebased superhero on Earth. The trailers made this very clear. They didn't lie to people about what was in the film, and they didn't trick anyone either. They showed exactly what its content was, and people got their expectations way, way up based on their own wishes for the franchise.

And THE DARK KNIGHT is a superhero story with crime drama elements. If you think it's a crime drama, then you've been watching some really, really silly and awkwardly executed crime dramas.

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 said. Judging Diane Nelson and her people based on a few years where we've "only" gotten the films we have is just silly. The Avengers characters' films took almost a decade to get from conception to production. More in some cases. Major motion pictures take time to develop.

Yeah but I doubt they actually can because again, for all the good Nolan has done, he's also against a shared universe which kind of makes no sense since it's his last Batman film.

Nolan was against involving his Batman in a shatred universe. He has never said that he himself is against an eventual shared universe concept. He's discussed the possibilities of it before, as recently as Dark Knight production.

The character has been out of the limelight for decades so when they finally decide to bring her out, they are going to have a time trying to make her relevant again.

True. Much like: The Hulk. Captain America. Thor. Iron Man. Spider-Man. And at one point, like Batman and Superman. Audiences have rarely been as familiar with characters as fans are. But they haven't forgotten them either. Not as a culture.

 

[KingMadness]

Green Lantern ruined it for all of us I'm afraid. I wish DC had its own movie company like Marvel. With WB, now we are gonna have to wait at least 5 years for them to give another A lister a chance. The handling of Green Lantern pains my heart because I'm a huge DC fan.

Green Lantern is the answer to this topic, THIS MOVIE IS WHERE IT WENT WRONG. Instead of being the movie to open up all the doors, Green Lantern locked them tight for half a decade atleast. Breaks my heart man, like I said I'm a huge DC fan, and I could write a 100 page essay on how Green Lantern is such a simple concept to translate to film.

 

[Tobias]

Green Lantern ruined it for all of us I'm afraid. I wish DC had its own movie company like Marvel. With WB, now we are gonna have to wait at least 5 years for them to give another A lister a chance. The handling of Green Lantern pains my heart because I'm a huge DC fan.

Green Lantern is the answer to this topic, THIS MOVIE IS WHERE IT WENT WRONG. Instead of being the movie to open up all the doors, Green Lantern locked them tight for half a decade atleast. Breaks my heart man, like I said I'm a huge DC fan, and I could write a 100 page essay on how Green Lantern is such a simple concept to translate to film.

I'd actually expand that to say that the combination of SR followed by GL is where it all went wrong. If just one had done well and the other not, WB would be gung-ho to try more DC films. That was not to be.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I'd actually expand that to say that the combination of SR followed by GL is where it all went wrong. If just one had done well and the other not, WB would be gung-ho to try more DC films. That was not to be.

This. For better or for worse, Batman is the only proven property.

 

[cloverfan98]

I'd actually expand that to say that the combination of SR followed by GL is where it all went wrong. If just one had done well and the other not, WB would be gung-ho to try more DC films. That was not to be.

Do you guys think DC should do what Marvel did in the late 90's and early 00's where they sold so many rights to so many different film studios? We'd get some pretty uneven films, but hey we would have more than just Superman and Batman films.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

No. DC may be struggling, but they're not facing bankruptcy

 

[Tobias]

This. For better or for worse, Batman is the only proven property.

True and I can understand if WB decides not to do A-listers for a while - other than Batman. MOS doesn't count. WB had decided to shelve Superman until the court forced their hand.

So if it's Batman and B/C listers only for the next 5 plus years I may not be happy about it (I want a Flash film like yesterday) but I can totally understand it. WB is putting up the money - not us fanboys.

 

[cloverfan98]

No. DC may be struggling, but they're not facing bankruptcy

True but selling all those rights is what lead to us getting films for second listers like Dare Devil, Elektra, Punisher, Blade, etc.

 

[ЯɘvlveR]

then we'd be *****ing and complaining about the fact that we'll never get a jl film because too many companies own different dc properties.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

True but selling all those rights is what lead to us getting films for second listers like Dare Devil, Elektra, Punisher, Blade, etc.

And how many of those actually got a sequel?

I see only one that did.

 

[cloverfan98]

And how many of those actually got a sequel?

I see only one that did.

Both Blade and Punisher had if not sequels then second and third films. Granted I'm not arguing that those were "good" movies, but rather that this would be an effective way for DC to get more of their characters onscreen.

 

[mclay18]

WB has an entire slate of movies to consider beyond the DC Comics superheroes. I don't think The Flash, Wonder Woman and Aquaman haven't happened because WB doesn't want to make money. They may well have happened because they simply don't have that kind of money free, or because they can't take the risk with that kind of money based ont he rest of their film slate. It's a bit of a gray area I'm sure. GREEN LANTERN was their first lighter foray into lighter fare, and it essentially failed. That was less than a year ago. It's not unreasonable that this failure would give them pause about moving forward, and how to move forward, but projects are clearly still being worked on. They are still developing superhero TV shows and films. That shows they are interested in using the DC stable of characters.

That is true, what with their two Hobbit films, plus Sherlock Holmes and Hangover having at least one more movie left -- WB could coast on those until after next year (and we'll see if MOS revitalizes the Superman franchise or not).

After that, WB is in a bind. They have themselves to blame for botching GL (even though I enjoyed it, lots more didn't), and it's clear that they need someone experienced steering their DC live-action department. Or why not dust off a script they already have, and shop it to directors for a fast-track?

I know the studio logistics are more complicated than they sound on paper, but this is ridiculous. Robinov is justifiably hesitant at greenlighting a DC film that's not a Batman film because of GL's failure, but you never what the results will be if you don't take a risk and make it. Lobo is much less expensive a risk than a CGI-heavy film, but it'll be the kind of writeoff Jonah Hex was. And that's not the right direction to go in.

 

[superion]

Marvel sold the rights to their characters to other movie studios because they did not have the ability to make their own movies prior to the formation of Marvel Studios and than their purchase by Disney.

DC never had that problem because it was owned by Warner Brothers. Disney has its own movie studio (Walt Disney pictures ), Pixar and Marvel Studios. Why can't Warner just spin off the DC properties into its own separate studio that works in conjunction with Warner studios.

From Wikipedia:

In November 2005, Marvel gained the film rights to Iron Man from New Line Cinema. Marvel revealed that it has regained the film rights to The Incredible Hulk in 2006. April 2006 Paramount Pictures acquired the rights to Thor from Sony. That year the film was announced to be a Marvel Studios production.

When Marvel Studio's decided to make their own movies in 2004, within 3 years of getting the rights back for Iron Man and and 2 years for the Incredible Hulk Marvel Studios was able to get out both films by the summer of 2008, IM2 in 2010 and both Thor and Captain America in 2011.

DCE has been around since late 2009 in that time they have pushed out one film Green Lantern in 2011 and a rebooted Superman for 2013 with absolutely nothing else in development for the future other than a sequel to Man of Steel if it does well. They need someone who is committed to making these films and getting them out instead of allowing them to languish in development hell.

They should announce both a Flash and WW movie for the summer of 2014 at $150 million budget and than get the JL movie out by 2015 with Reynolds as GL, Cavil as Superman, whoever they sign to play WW and Flash and a recast Batman since Bale no longer wants to play the role any more.

 

[Tobias]

That is true, what with their two Hobbit films, plus Sherlock Holmes and Hangover having at least one more movie left -- WB could coast on those until after next year (and we'll see if MOS revitalizes the Superman franchise or not).

After that, WB is in a bind.

The fact is WB is not in a bind.

They could never do another DC film aside from Batman and do just as well as a corporation and maybe better than if they did do major DC films. Just look at how SR and GL turned out.

MOS ain't a factor. Even if it does well WB isn't going to be able to touch Supes again for a long time because of legal issues.

Yet, as you mention there is SH, Hangover, Hobbit. Others too.

WB does not need the A-list DC proprties, aside from Batman, to flourish. It may be why they are turning to lesser characters like Lobo instead of Flash.

Even Batman does not have the ROI of a SH or Hangover.

WB is lots of things but it is not in a bind because of what it has not done with it's DC properties.

 

[roach]

comparing Marvel to WB is like comparing Pizza Hut to Olive Garden...sure PH makes bomb *ss pizza but thats it...Olive Garden has a full array of italian food to draw on...just because Olive Garden's pizza isn't as good as Pizza Hutt's doesn't mean its in a bind

 

[superion]

comparing Marvel to WB is like comparing Pizza Hut to Olive Garden...sure PH makes bomb *ss pizza but thats it...Olive Garden has a full array of italian food to draw on...just because Olive Garden's pizza isn't as good as Pizza Hutt's doesn't mean its in a bind

It's not comparing WB to Marvel its comparing WB to Disney which does everything it does with Pixar and everything else like WB, while also having Marvel Studios continue to work on the Marvel properties.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Both Blade and Punisher had if not sequels then second and third films. Granted I'm not arguing that those were "good" movies, but rather that this would be an effective way for DC to get more of their characters onscreen.

The point is not just simply get the characters on screen just because we want to see it. I'd rather trust WB/DC with the property than have them licensed to other studios. Marvel only did it because they didn't have a movie studio to back them nor could they at the time afford to make movies.

Meanwhile, DC has WB, for better or for worse. At least they have all their licenses under one studio.

 

[roach]

no they are not...they are comparing Marvel Studios they guys putting out the movies(yes under the Disney umbrella but are pretty much left to their own devices) to WB.