Where did DC/WB go wrong? - Part 1

[ЯɘvlveR]

and now I'm hungry.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

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

Exactly, though WB after TDKR is in huge need of new franchises.

That's why WB is going to be banking on MOS and Pacific Rim.

 

[mclay18]

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

True. They're not in a bind right now because they have these other franchises to milk dry. But chances are they won't make a fourth Hangover (the actors' salaries) or SH (RDJ's asking price of $12M per film, plus backends) because costs will be prohibitively expensive, and the LOTR franchise will be done by December 2013.

WB will want to continue that reliable trend of mid-July releases that they started back in 2007 and will end in 2014. It's been a 'good luck' spot of sorts that's been hugely profitable for them (HP5, TDK, HP6, Inception, HP8, TDKR, and possibly Pacific Rim). Sure, they'll make money earlier or later on during the year, but mid-July was their 'good-luck charm' spot. They'll definitely want something big for July 2014. (I don't think possible sequels to Beautiful Creatures or Seventh Son will cut it.)

WB is just going about this the wrong way.

 

[roach]

there won't be a fourth Hangover because the third one will be the last one...and I can guarantee you there will be another SH movie

WB has a lot in the pipeline

 

[Micromind]

WB needs to stop making terrible Clash Of Titans sequels and use that money for a Wonder Woman movie, that will be more succesful.

 

[cloverfan98]

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.

Point taken. Green Lantern may have dissapointed at the BO (I kinda liked it) but do you guys really believe that GL's failure means the end for other DC characters beyond Batman and Superman? (don't mean this as a challenge just a legitamte question)

 

[MadVillainy]

I think it will stall them for a bit.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Good reading. Some of it is encouraging, some not so much. After reading through some of this I'm thinking Marvel may have benefited from having to let other studios handle some of their characters. If Marvel was having to do Spidey, X-Men, Daredevil, FF, Blade, Punisher, and Ghost Rider....would they ever have gotten around to Iron Man, Cap, Thor, and Avengers? The situation at WB with DC makes me wonder.
(I will say I wish Marvel was doing Ghost Rider...dammit...)

I want a Flash movie...badly. I hope the GL failure doesn't kill it. Also reading this thread makes me a little more into the idea of a WW movie.

To be honest, Happy Hogan could have done whatever a$$ kicking she did in IM 2, she was there just so that she could get entry into Avengers, the whole movie was a setup to Avengers.

I don't think Hogan beating the crap out of a room full of guys would have worked. It was much better to have him beat that one guy and think he had "helped". (that line made me laugh for 30 seconds straight in the theater) I don't think The Avengers had that big a presence in IM2 myself. After establishing that the characters exist in a shared universe in IM1, it wouldn't make any sense to have Nick Fury go away. Of course he will continue to keep tabs on Stark.

Iron Man 2 is the Green Lantern movie of Marvel Cinematic Universe.

If IM2 is the "worst one" that's pretty good for Marvel. I would put up Ghost Rider as "the worst Marvel movie character" myself. I had similar thoughts when I watched both GL and GR...."How did they screw this up? These characters should be no-brainers!"

The idea wasn't that bad had they just used an original character as Weapon XI instead of making him Deadpool. There was no reason he had to be Wade Wilson, except to piss people off.

That made me grin. t: I does make you wonder...why even name him Deadpool?

What they should've done is just used Hector Hammond as the sole villain, and made the story about Sinestro helping Hal defeat Hammond, perhaps with Sinestro starting to turn evil slowly in the process. Then ending the movie with a trip to Oa, having Hal earning his place to be amongst the Lanterns. I would've largely confined the first two acts to Earth, saved the trip to Oa for the end, and made Sinestro the only other Lantern we saw or heard from. I would've also had Sinestro stay in Hal's apartment, maybe make a running gag out of him trying to conceal who this person is from his friends and family. That way, in the next film, they could've really fleshed out the other Lanterns and the Guardians. Green Lantern is far too ambitious with all it tries to cram in. They spread themselves way too thin, and the result is what we all saw.

I like your plot much better than what we got.

In any event, WB had already decided to shelve Superman films because they are not financially feasible. No one seems to be expecting much from MOS. Maybe 400 million? When it costs 200 million to make and maybe 100 million to market that is a bad investment.

This is good for GL. WB is probably right now looking for that franchise to complement Batman. WW and Flash are contenders but GL is probably the only major DC franchise that can do huge numbers.

Just satyin - don't count GL out.

Isn't a 100 million profit pretty good?

I would also love to see GL get another shot...hope we don't have to wait 10 years.

Superman is worth the risk because if they get things right they will make a fortune. Probably more than any other hero in their stable of characters.

For how bad some of the posters make Superman returns out to be, the film made over 200 million domestic, something that very few comic book films have achieved. Can you imagine what it would make if it got the praise of iron man 1 or batman begins.

Really just to get an idea of his popularity you don't have to look any further than these boards. Go to the iron man and thor boards after the films came out, they were a dead zone. The superman boards, even after there was no sequel in sight still had more posters talking about a film that may or may not have happened.

My thoughts exactly. SR came out one year after BB. Both were preceded by terrible installments in the franchise. BB got great reviews and is widely loved by fans....SR got ok reviews and is widely disliked by fans. SR made about the same amount of money as BB despite that. That should tell you how strong the Superman character is. He made more than Thor, Captain America and X-Men despite having a less loved movie. Imagine how popular a Supes movie would be if they hit it out of the park?

Staggered releases are pretty stupid. That's actually what ruins some movies in terms of box office. And studies have revealed that staggered release dates hurt ticket sales more than piracy.

I wonder about this too. Why are they doing this with movies in the age of the internet? Just have a set release day worldwide. That would make it more of an "event" too.

I think Nolan is the worst thing that could have happened to DC when it comes to it's comic department. He doesn't want a shared DCU, which is now not going to happen. Batman "realism" is not really Batman. You can make the comic Batman work on film if done right.

I too would love to see the comic Batman onscreen at some point. In a way, you're right about Nolan. His success may put his opinions too high in WB's eyes. He may not have the best vision for non-Batman characters. "Dark" gets old after a while.

I'm trying to understand how Superman isnt considered a mega franchise, with its 5 films and the fact that it STARTED THE CBM GENRE, yet GL, with its one flop film is.

It...dosen't make sense.

Agreed. (Though I do love GL and want him to have another chance) I think Supes could really surprise people if they do it right.

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.

As a person who saw the movie with no prior knowledge of the characters (I never read the GN), I never saw it coming. As a matter of fact....I wasn't really that sure Ozy was a "villain" after the movie was over! That's why I love it so much.

I'm probably one of the few who considers Watchmen the best comic book movie ever made though. (tied with Kick Ass on my list)

I am almost positive that Justice League would fail.

DC is too complicated and their heroes are over-powered except for a few like Batman and.....???

The Avengers has the same problem (Thor and Hulk are over-powered and Capt America, Hawkeye, and Black Widow are lesser powered), but from all accounts, Whedon makes it work. No reason why JL wouldn't work as well. The only difficulty I see is that Batman is the most popular and many of his fans want to see him as the "biggest, baddest dude on the planet"....that would look silly in a JL movie.

http://www.worldofsuperheroes.com/f...inventing-batman-after-the-dark-knight-rises/

"Robinov has said that a new Justice League script ‘is’ in the works. Also being written for Warner are scripts featuring the Flash and Wonder Woman."

Just looking at that logo at the top of the article is exciting. Make the movie with that vibe!

I do appreciate he tried to do some new things with the character, but Superman will always be about hope, not dark and brooding.
Synders version isnt getting me excited either. Theres a whole universe out there - Brainiac, Darkseid, Metallo, and we're getting Luthor, Zod, origin story again.Oh, and dark and brooding Superman ala Batman influences. Superman doesnt have Batmans dark psychology.

sigh.

Agreed. The love affair with "dark" is getting on my nerves. Superman became the biggest icon in superhero history being based upon optimistic concepts.

I'd like WB to listen to pitches from directors passionate about the properties, it's no good setting up some internal structure within DC Entertainment to do it, find directors who actually want to make the movies and let things evolve organically, once you do that don't force things to happen, don't leave things out for future movies, just make the best damn movie here and now. Part of where GL went wrong was WB were so sure of themselves they planted seeds for future GL movies. I hate that mentality, don't plant seeds, don't leave things out, make the best effing movie first and foremost, deal with sequels when they come around.

Agreed! That was also a problem for me with Capt America. It never felt like it was its own entity. (Really the only Marvel movie that gave me that vibe)

For some reason, the movie studios think that comic characters have origins, and then their adventures stop.

I simply do not need to see Superman or Batman's origin ever again, and anyone on earth who doesn't already know Batman and Superman's origins will likely not bother to see their movies anyway.

Same with Spider-Man. I am wondering why ASM is going that route. Who doesn't know his origin? I would say he's got the 2nd most well-known origin after Superman.

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 think it was the movie. Capt America came out after GL and did better.

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.

You might be right.

 

[jmc]

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.

Thing is Disney needed something to tap into the male demographic they had lost over the years, the Marvel acquisition was for that reason. WB have been tapping into that market for decades. Pixar is it's own beast because frankly they've earned it with the record they've gotten. Marvel don't have the same pulling power as Pixar yet and it's hard to say if they ever will given they only make one specific type of movie so it remains to be seen if will always be the ones calling the shots.

 

[J.Howlett]

If WB continues to make franchise pictures out of original ideas or other literary adaptations (Hangover and Sherlock Holmes franchises come to mind), I agree with the assessment that they'll just keep making DC properties of the C or D list rosters. Sort of in the same vein as V for Vendetta and Constantine. They don't cost a lot but they could deliver a lot of money.

They'll have one of the big two (Batman and Superman) always in the mix amongst all these other properties they have.

 

[superion]

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.

Why can't WB allow DC to do the same with its properties? What the hell is DCE good for if they are not going to have any autonomy to get their properties out.

 

[J.Howlett]

DCE, if I recall, isn't only about feature length films. They have other avenues to get out their properties.

Hell, they have the direct to video animated movies genre pretty much on lock down.

 

[jmc]

If WB continues to make franchise pictures out of original ideas or other literary adaptations (Hangover and Sherlock Holmes franchises come to mind), I agree with the assessment that they'll just keep making DC properties of the C or D list rosters. Sort of in the same vein as V for Vendetta and Constantine. They don't cost a lot but they could deliver a lot of money.

They'll have one of the big two (Batman and Superman) always in the mix amongst all these other properties they have.

Exactly, WB will always have more money making possibilities up their sleeve outside the superhero genre. They don't need to littering the screen with superheroes each and every year, if anything it doesn't make financial sense for them to do so. Does it suck? Yeah, but you can't blame them.

 

[roach]

Why can't WB allow DC to do the same with its properties? What the hell is DCE good for if they are not going to have any autonomy to get their properties out.

because DCE isn't a studio....its an entertainment group within WB. Marvel was a self sufficient studio before Disney came calling

 

[Docker2.0]

DCE, if I recall, isn't only about feature length films. They have other avenues to get out their properties.

Hell, they have the direct to video animated movies genre pretty much on lock down.

Compare those direct to video receipts to Marvel's live action receipts and tell me you still prefer WB/DC strategy. It's not knocking them per say because there animated movies are great. But it also goes to show you that there is a demand for DC heroes because they are bringing in money with those movies. If they translated that to live action they can get 10x as much returned. As much as I hate to use TDK, it's the perfect example.

 

[The Guard]

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.

Whatr are you basing this on? Assumption? WB has flat out said they're still working on Justice League, The Flash and Wonder Woman concepts.

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

GREEN LANTERN slowed things down a bit, but even if it took five years from 2011 for WB to move on another DC superhero besides Batman and Superman (which seems really unlikely), half a decade isn't really anything in movie studio terms. IRON MAN, etc, took more than a decade to bring to the screen in various forms.

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.

SUPERMAN RETURNS did well enough that WB seriously considered and began developing a sequel. They are two different animals. Once THE DARK KNIGHT cleaned up and Marvel entered the field, WB no longer wanted to make "just enough" money off superhero properties. Hence the switch to GREEN LANTERN's approach, which obviously didn't work out as they'd hoped.

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

To a point. I think Superman, both historically and recently, is still a very visible, proven concept, albeit not as financially successful. That is, unless MAN OF STEEL fails.

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.

It's annoying to keep hearing this parrotted, because as far as I know there is simply no proof for this. No they hadn't decided to "shelve Superman because of the court issue". They had struggled to find a direction for the next Superman film even before this. But they were still developing something. The court forced them to make the film by a certain date, but the film was taking shape as it was.

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.

Agreed.

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?

Let's not forget, WB doesn't just make blockbuster/fantasy/adventure films. They make smaller movies that also make them money. That's part of their obligation...to these other markets. If they can make four smaller movies for $100 million and gross $400 million, it's understandable that they'd risk that VS a $150-$200 million dollar movie that might fail as Green Lantern did.

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.

But it's only 2012. Just because they haven't greenlit another $150-$200 million film since GL's failure in 2011 doesn't mean they're not willing to take any more risks. Just not at the moment. Especially since they are bankrolling very large budgeted Batman and Superman movies right now.

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.

Disney is Disney. There's just no comparing it to most other corporations.

WB can make movies. The problem isn't that it has no capability to make movies. The problem is that it apparently lacks the money/resources to do so.

All of Marvel's money goes to making superhero movies. That's all it does. WB doesn't have that luxury.

If WB has another studio, it still has to find that money somewhere from within the company.

Could WB open a new studio? I don't know, probably. But when you consider startup and operating costs, and the fact that they'd still have to have money for films from within WB itself, I think the benefits of it are probably negligible. I'm certain someone with far more knowledge of movies and business than most of us has already figured out that "Just copy Marvel" is an option, and explored it.

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.

There's a rebooted Batman franchise already planned. They're working on Flash and Wonder Woman and JLA projects. Lobo was just announced. This isn't "absolutely nothing". Not by a long shot.

They need someone who is committed to making these films and getting them out instead of allowing them to languish in development hell.

They need someone to make good movies. They tried being committed to a concept and getting it out. That was GREEN LANTERN.

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.

That would be nice. But that also may not be financially feasible at the moment, since they're currently wrapping up THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, which cost something like $250 million, and MAN OF STEEL, which cost $175, and have to spend money marketing both.

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.

Based on what? Where's the proof that this is the case?

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.

And there it is.

 

[MadVillainy]

what's ROI mean?

 

[HighFivingMF]

They're not going to be unable to touch Superman.

 

[Cain]

what's ROI mean?

Return on investment.

 

[Cain]

They're not going to be unable to touch Superman.

Agreed. It seems like some people are conveniently forgetting current events as far as the lawsuit goes because it doesn't match up with their own personal opinions

http://www.comicsbeat.com/2012/04/1...superman-suit-against-attorney-marc-toberoff/

 

[Ultimatehero]

I'm unsure how much free-range Disney has. But I think MARVEL films just need to align with what MARVEL and DISNEY have in mind. Further complicating things over at WB - it has to be what the head of WB, head of the production company behind said film, and head of DC all equally want and agree upon. I've seen dozens here make the misconception that if you know what's going on with one DC film, you must know what's going on with the others - far from the case. It's extremely divided. They need to all be on the same page. Getting on that same page is difficult. As even Whedon once said, "they didn't seem to know exactly what they wanted." Probably due to it having three heads that need to line up over than just two - making them take longer.

 

[Cain]

There's a rebooted Batman franchise already planned. They're working on Flash and Wonder Woman and JLA projects. Lobo was just announced. This isn't "absolutely nothing". Not by a long shot.

Yes sir.

People also conveniently forget that since 2009 DCE had their hands in bringing Jonah Hex, The Losers and RED to the screen and not just GL. They're also working on developing a sequel to RED at the moment. That's hardly "absolutely nothing".

DCE also like their parent company have their hand in more than just big screen comic book adaptations. It's not like the people in those offices are just twiddling their thumbs and staring at the wall everyday. They have to worry about publishing comic books; developing animated DTV's; getting video games and tv programs off the ground and merchandising & licensing deals on top of developing big screen adaptations of their properties.

I'm actually impressed by their output since 2009 actually. Not just on the big screen & with their DTV's but with the comic relaunch; Young Justice and Green Lantern animated shows and the Batman Arkham video game series as well as DCU Online. That's quite a lot of production for a 3 year time frame when you think about.

 

[OsGom]

Honestly I think one of the main issues with with the GL movie, and many other superhero adaptations, is they blew their wad right away. Parallax is a great villain in the comics and a classic GL story arc but it requires some pretty significant set-up if it was to be adapted well.

Instead filmmakers, including Geoff Johns, thought they could haphazardly cram various elements from different arcs together and tell an effective story. All this resulted in a film that failed connect GL and his story with audiences and at the same time slapping long time DC/GL fans right in the chops. FF, X3, and DD suffered from these same issues.

 

[roach]

They're not going to be unable to touch Superman.

if the family wins the lawsuit DC can still touch Superman...they just lose parts of the origin

 

[HighFivingMF]

if the family wins the lawsuit DC can still touch Superman...they just lose parts of the origin

Yep. We're getting the origin in this movie though, so it won't be a problem.