Where did DC/WB go wrong? - Part 1

[ElMariachi]

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.

Have you ever heard the phrase, 'better safe than sorry'? I think it applies to these two movies. Captain America and Thor are difficult characters to adapt for movies and audiences. Allowing these iffy concepts/fringe characters to become even more unusual/bizarre could have easily blown up in Marvel's face. Instead of this happening, we got two great character introductions and guaranteed franchises. The creativity for plots will be opened up now that there is familiarity with these two characters. Also now that the Avengers storyline is over. We have already heard about the directions they are taking Iron Man 3, Captain America 2, and Thor 2. Captain America and Thor should be given alot of credit on this forum due to their success. Aside from already popular characters (Batman, Superman, Spiderman), has anybody really taken such gambles on relatively minor characters? $150 million on a bizarre concept like Thor with Frost Giants, Norse gods, wormholes, and guys with horned helmets vying for the throne of cosmic floating islands. The general audience didn't buy into John Carter, so it's not all that easy to pull off.

I don't think Thor was a safe movie. Captain America a bit but it had to be. The problem with Captain America is that we already knew what was going to happen. Much of the movie had to be devoted to his orgin and becoming Captain America. The end of the movie was going to be a suicide mission where he 'died'. There is only so much time for the middle of the movie to allow for a complex plot.

 

[Docker2.0]

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.

OMG! I thought I was the only one who felt that way!! When I first heard that he was the villain in GL, I was like WTF but I was willing to give it a chance. But to this day, I can't see to watch the entire GL movie all the way through. Sinestro or Hector should have been the villian for the first movie. I would probably use Parallex for the second actually, only because I wanted to use the Black Lanterns for part 3. But if you are going to build up for Parallex, I guess it would make sense for him to be in part 3 as well but not both.

 

[Mr. Immortal]

Have you ever heard the phrase, 'better safe than sorry'? I think it applies to these two movies. Captain America and Thor are difficult characters to adapt for movies and audiences. Allowing these iffy concepts/fringe characters to become even more unusual/bizarre could have easily blown up in Marvel's face. Instead of this happening, we got two great character introductions and guaranteed franchises. The creativity for plots will be opened up now that there is familiarity with these two characters. Also now that the Avengers storyline is over. We have already heard about the directions they are taking Iron Man 3, Captain America 2, and Thor 2. Captain America and Thor should be given alot of credit on this forum due to their success. Aside from already popular characters (Batman, Superman, Spiderman), has anybody really taken such gambles on relatively minor characters? $150 million on a bizarre concept like Thor with Frost Giants, Norse gods, wormholes, and guys with horned helmets vying for the throne of cosmic floating islands. The general audience didn't buy into John Carter, so it's not all that easy to pull off.

I don't think Thor was a safe movie. Captain America a bit but it had to be. The problem with Captain America is that we already knew what was going to happen. Much of the movie had to be devoted to his orgin and becoming Captain America. The end of the movie was going to be a suicide mission where he 'died'. There is only so much time for the middle of the movie to allow for a complex plot.

Finally, someone who gets it.

 

[CConn]

I mainly agree, and don't get me wrong, I love Captain America as a movie, but they could've made it edgier even with the same plot structure.

The problems that I had with the movie - that I think made it seem like a softball effort at times - was the real lack of an actual Nazi presence and influence (HYDRA was much too much of its own thing, IMO...and there was a definitive lack of swastikas in the movie, which I think is telling), and it never really featured Cap in a real WW2, Saving Private Ryan-esque battle.

They focused more on the super heroics and the sci-fi than the grittiness of the war. And that's where the movie felt soft, IMO. It was more about tone and focus than plotting or story. They could've told that exact same story in a decidedly more mature and adult way. But they didn't.

Like I said though, I still think its a very good movie despite those flaws. It's actually one of my favorite Marvel movies.

 

[Slushy]

- Rebooting Superman instead of making a better sequel

- Not keeping Bale or Nolan around after TDKR

- Allowing the casting of Reynolds as Hal Jordan

- Not making a Flash, Wonder Woman, or Aqua Man movie.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

It's simple. Swastika's and costumes aside, they really stuck really close to the feel of the original 40s comics and actually downplayed the more fantastical elements.

It's one of my favorite Marvel movies. It's one of the ones I actually own.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

- Rebooting Superman instead of making a better sequel

- Not keeping Bale or Nolan around after TDKR

- Allowing the casting of Reynolds as Hal Jordan

- Not making a Flash, Wonder Woman, or Aqua Man movie.

A few things:

I agree with the Superman thing. I think a sequel (with or without Routh) could have done really well if they actually upped the action in it.

We can't tell if Nolan or Bale will go wrong after, though I believe Nolan would still be a producer of whatever Batman movies come after, which I think is a good thing.

And after Green Lantern, would you think that WB right now could pull of making a Flash, Wonder Woman or Aqua Man movie right now? I think those could be even worse.

 

[HighFivingMF]

The general consensus was that there was nothing wrong with Reynolds as Hal.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Which is why I said nothing about that. If hey wanted him to play it straight, he could have done that.

 

[mclay18]

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".

RED was produced independently by Summit/Lionsgate, not WB. Gregory Noveck had to get approval from all divisions at WB to exercise his right to shop the movie rights to other studios, and that took a while.

 

[metaphysician]

I mainly agree, and don't get me wrong, I love Captain America as a movie, but they could've made it edgier even with the same plot structure.

The problems that I had with the movie - that I think made it seem like a softball effort at times - was the real lack of an actual Nazi presence and influence (HYDRA was much too much of its own thing, IMO...and there was a definitive lack of swastikas in the movie, which I think is telling), and it never really featured Cap in a real WW2, Saving Private Ryan-esque battle.

They focused more on the super heroics and the sci-fi than the grittiness of the war. And that's where the movie felt soft, IMO. It was more about tone and focus than plotting or story. They could've told that exact same story in a decidedly more mature and adult way. But they didn't.

Like I said though, I still think its a very good movie despite those flaws. It's actually one of my favorite Marvel movies.

This was almost certainly done so that they could market the movie in Europe. If they included a much stronger overt Nazi element, they couldn't have released the movie in a lot of countries, not just Germany.

 

[roach]

which didn't seem to affect Inglourious Basterds any

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Inglorious Basterds couldn't market anything with a swastika in Germany, but they could show it in movies.

Captain America had some Nazi's in it, but ultimately I didn't really care that much about the lack of swastikas.

 

[Cain]

RED was produced independently by Summit/Lionsgate, not WB. Gregory Noveck had to get approval from all divisions at WB to exercise his right to shop the movie rights to other studios, and that took a while.

DC Entertainment not Warner Bros.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Someone's mad they got corrected.

 

[Cain]

Someone's mad they got corrected.

What are you talking about guy? it's simple semantics and reading comprehension. I'm talking about DCE a subdivision of WB. Subdivision is not WB themselves it means WB is the parent company. DC Entertainment's official resume

http://www.imdb.com/company/co0283444/

I know that WB didn't distribute RED I never said they did. I know that it was a Summit Entertainment release but you also see DC Entertainment credited as one of the production companies on all the official press releases for that movie because that's what they did. It's why their older logo from that time is on the poster for that movie.

Production company does not = movie studio and vice versa.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Which is why I said nothing about that. If hey wanted him to play it straight, he could have done that.

Agreed. Buried is required viewing for anyone who doesn't believe Reynolds can play it "straight". You'll never doubt his abilities again after seeing that one.

 

[Cain]

I'm not even a Ryan Reynolds fan like that. I guess I've enjoyed some of his movies but it's not like it's an actor I usually check for or own his movies or anything. I was one of the one's who thought his casting as Hal was suspect. I think in the end he did a good job with what he had though. I think him being cast wasn't a problem there were much bigger problems with that movie overall.

 

[Cain]

I mainly agree, and don't get me wrong, I love Captain America as a movie, but they could've made it edgier even with the same plot structure.

The problems that I had with the movie - that I think made it seem like a softball effort at times - was the real lack of an actual Nazi presence and influence (HYDRA was much too much of its own thing, IMO...and there was a definitive lack of swastikas in the movie, which I think is telling), and it never really featured Cap in a real WW2, Saving Private Ryan-esque battle.

They focused more on the super heroics and the sci-fi than the grittiness of the war. And that's where the movie felt soft, IMO. It was more about tone and focus than plotting or story. They could've told that exact same story in a decidedly more mature and adult way. But they didn't.

Like I said though, I still think its a very good movie despite those flaws. It's actually one of my favorite Marvel movies.

I agree.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

What are you talking about guy? it's simple semantics and reading comprehension. I'm talking about DCE a subdivision of WB. Subdivision is not WB themselves it means WB is the parent company. DC Entertainment's official resume

http://www.imdb.com/company/co0283444/

I know that WB didn't distribute RED I never said they did. I know that it was a Summit Entertainment release but you also see DC Entertainment credited as one of the production companies on all the official press releases for that movie because that's what they did. It's why their older logo from that time is on the poster for that movie.

Production company does not = movie studio and vice versa.

Spoiler

You're right, by the way. I'm just trolling you.

 

[Cain]

How cute. If I'm bold enough to show my actual face on here it's because just like it is for me offline I'm not one to talk out of my ass and have nothing to hide behind. It's not in my nature. I also don't catch feelings over something this trivial let alone things that are actually worth catching feelings over cause it's not in my nature. What is in my nature though is that I deal with facts.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Cool.

You know I agreed with you, right?

 

[Cain]

I never saw the spoiler tag cause the pic was so big. But ok.

 

[cronosred]

For all the complaints about the villains in Green Lantern and how they were taken out was no one upset that Red Skull was such a lame villain? I mean he's equally matched in strength with our hero plus he has the Cosmic Cube with the power to change the world and yet the minute Cap shows up he feels outmatched and spends the rest of the film running from him until the end when he defeats himself. Did no one else have a problem with this?

 

[Anubis]

I never saw the spoiler tag cause the pic was so big. But ok.