Where did DC/WB go wrong? - Part 1

[Cain]

Jay Leno's troll face >>>> any other troll face.

 

[Lone]

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. One my faves and actually the movie that made me wanna read Cap's comics.

I personally would've loved a two hour version of The Ultimates' opening act.

 

[The Guard]

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

In what realistic world does DC Comics lose the rights to Superman without attempting to settle? Even if they get the rights to the origin, etc back, the families aren't just going to sit on Superman's origin. They will want money. They will make a deal.

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.

Whedon was on Wonder several years ago. Rumors for it started as early as 2004. No one really knew what they wanted back then. They knew Spider-Man and X-Men had succeeded, but there was still question about lesser known characters. Superheroes didn't become a priority until around 2008, with the release of The Dark Knight and Iron Man. Those two movies changed things.

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.

Exactly.

I don't think people understand what a colossal amount of work a blockbuster superhero movie can be. Or if they do, they're discounting it, assuming it's particuarly doable to make two or three of them in the span of a few years at a studio like WB.

DCE's production is light years beyond where WB/DC were ten years ago, when they basically just had BATMAN BEYOND, TEEN TITANS or JUSTICE LEAGUE at any given time, and SMALLVILLE.

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.

Not really. Parallax is a fear entity. There's only so much you can say about it. There's only so much set up it requires. Nor are Parallax and Legion the Green Lantern's greatest villains. The blowing their wad thing isn't terribly accurate.

Blowin their wad would have been using Sinestro, or the Sinestro Corps and Parallax, right off the bat. Which maybe is what they should have done. That might have been cost prohibitive for an unproved character.

Instead filmmakers, including Geoff Johns, thought they could haphazardly cram various elements from different arcs together and tell an effective story.

I don't know that it was haphazard as all that. It could have worked. There's really no reason that combining the ideas of Legion, Parallax, and Krona could not have worked.

It just didn't work that well.

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.

I've never said that being safe was a bad thing for the franchises. Only pointed out that they were, in fact, safe films.

Captain America is basically a genetically enginerred soldier. We've seen that on film before. Though the character was these things long before most film versions, it is no longer a new concept, or even a particularly unique one. World War II isn't a terribly risky subject.

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.

I hope so. We'll see.

Aside from already popular characters (Batman, Superman, Spiderman), has anybody really taken such gambles on relatively minor characters?

They were a calculated risk after IRON MAN and IRON MAN. But have studios taken risks? Yes. THE FANTASTIC FOUR. GHOST RIDER. DAREDEVIL. And lesser budgets, but still risks for BLADE, HELLBOY and SPAWN.

$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.

That isn't really all that bizarre, though. It's a fantasy/myth. Those kinds of movies have existed for a long time.

I don't think Thor was a safe movie.

How so? The most unsafe thing Thor did was have him separated from Jane.

Captain America a bit but it had to be.

Why?

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.

The average audience member doesn't know that, though. Fans do, but general audiences don't.

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.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Back in 2010, when people found out Parallax was involved, most were thrilled.

Most people seemed to hate Hector Hammond, period, after the movie, but people were excited that mythos character was being used before that.

There were no guarantees of a sequel, or a part 3. They should probably have used Sinestro and Parallax in the first film, with Hammond in a lesser role, instead of banking on a sequel. But they were trying to take Chris Nolan's approach, saving the major villain for a sequel.

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.

Agreed.

There's never any real exploration of the war, or the concepts of war in relation to Captain America. There was never any moral exploration into his actions, into his power and what that meant. His conflicts were surface conflicts, with obvious moral answers, and easily resolved. It's still a good movie, just not what it could have been.

Rebooting Superman instead of making a better sequel

Rebooting is what most people seemed to want and respond to.

Not keeping Bale or Nolan around after TDKR

They are keeping Nolan around after TDKR, for both Batman and Superman franchises. Bale doesn't want to play Batman forever, or I imagine they would try to retain him.

Allowing the casting of Reynolds as Hal Jordan

Which many fans liked, and many general audiences were excited about, and which worked for the most part.

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

Yes, they've only made three Batman movies, two Superman movies and Green Lantern, Watchmen and V For Vendetta in the last ten years.

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

This is the problem I have with people's assessment of GREEN LANTENR. By and large, Ryan Reynolds DID play the role straight. Despite its comic booky tone, there really aren't very many humorous moments in the film compared to all the serious stuff with Hal. There are a few jokes here and there, and the rest of the movie that features Hal is him dealing with relatively serious issues.

Green Lantern is not a super serious character. He makes jokes. He has a sense of humor.

Reynolds is completely capable of being a serious actor, but this film did not call for that.

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

Why? Is this accurate?

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?

The Red Skull was the worst disappointment of Captain America for me. Just very thinly portrayed. Weaving did a great job with almost nothing to work with.

 

[Docker2.0]

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.

That really is you? You need to smile more because your gif looks like a mug shot. Just putting it out there.

 

[ElMariachi]

I've never said that being safe was a bad thing for the franchises. Only pointed out that they were, in fact, safe films.

Captain America is basically a genetically enginerred soldier. We've seen that on film before. Though the character was these things long before most film versions, it is no longer a new concept, or even a particularly unique one. World War II isn't a terribly risky subject.

Captain America is more than a genetically engineered soldier. He is a propaganda character, a relic of the past, and pretty much a boy scout. We really haven't seen anything like this. Surely nothing that could be considered a summer tentpole. Characters like Captain America or Superman are difficult to pull off these days because audiences expect characters like Tony Stark, Bruce Wayne, Han Solo, Indiana Jones, Wolverine, James Bond, Jack Sparrow, Peter Parker, etc.

Also, WWII is a very risky subject. Especially when the movie is a PG-13 summer movie and aimed at a global, young audience. The war is still a very touchy subject around the world and Marvel had to be extremely careful on how it was portrayed. You are talking about an American propaganda character in a post-9/11 era of anti-Americanism in a movie where people assume it will portray American winning WWII single-handedly. They had to deal with that and the challenge of not making the movie cheesy. Take a look at the box office returns of WWII movies. It's not an easy sell.

Marvel should given high praise for it's success. It is the most difficult superhero to pull off and they did a great job with it. The movie was a hit, got pretty high praise, and from what I hear, flows nicely into Avengers.

They were a calculated risk after IRON MAN and IRON MAN. But have studios taken risks? Yes. THE FANTASTIC FOUR. GHOST RIDER. DAREDEVIL. And lesser budgets, but still risks for BLADE, HELLBOY and SPAWN.

Those aren't quite on the same level as CA. Captain America was Marvel's big movie and a key cog to the Avengers. The rest of those movies were financed by major studios without really that much risk. Captain America or Thor bombing or getting poor reviews could have seriously tarnished their long term goals. Marvel Studios isn't Warner Brothers were it could swallow a Green Lantern, Superman Returns, or Jonah Hex.

That isn't really all that bizarre, though. It's a fantasy/myth. Those kinds of movies have existed for a long time.

Norse mythology is unique to the big screen compared to Greek mythology. Aside from Beowulf, what other live action movies come to mind? The notion of Asgard and Norse gods living in the same universe as us is a bizarre concept for most people. You may not remember but there was alot of people doubting they could even pull this off and the movie not being horrible.

How so? The most unsafe thing Thor did was have him separated from Jane.

This whole safe/unsafe thing is completely ridiculous. Almost all movies have 'safe' plot points. The Dark Knight included and certainly every other superhero movie. You are splitting hairs here.

I personally don't think it's a 'safe' plot having Norse gods travelling to the earth via wormholes. To the general audience, it's still a pretty silly concept. Nor do I think anything regarding the scenes in Asgard are 'safe'.

The average audience member doesn't know that, though. Fans do, but general audiences don't.

That's the characters story arc. You start changing too much and it begins to look stupid. Captain America has to be a weakling that turns into a peak human being. He has to freeze and sleep in a block of ice for decades. Not having those two aspects of his character would be like Spider-Man not getting bit, Bruce Wayne's parents being alive, and Iron Man not building his suit in captivity.

 

[jmc]

If by flows nicely you mean they show flash back images to the solo film then.....yeah I guess it does. Avengers is very much a stand alone movie I can attest to that even if I wasn't in the best of health watching it, what stood out the most is just how little information from the solo films you actually needed to understand the movie, in fact there were very few references at all to the past movies that only the die hard like us would have picked up on them. So if there's a lesson here for WB in doing a JL film is to simply do a JL film, don't worry about trying to connect things with solo films or handcuff them when ultimately what transpires in those movie is not going to matter.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Damn you for being able to watch The Avengers now!

 

[metaphysician]

*cough* Honestly, I think Thor was the riskier film than Captain America. Captain America is basically pulp adventure in WWII, and that is fairly well trod territory. Thor, OTOH, deals with Kirby cosmic stuff, and tied to the somewhat lesser known Norse mythology ( as opposed to Greek myth ). But that's my take on the matter.

 

[CConn]

They're both risky in their own ways.

Cap kinda had to deal with being a patriotic american film in an international, not so American patriotic market.

 

[Ultimatehero]

If by flows nicely you mean they show flash back images to the solo film then.....yeah I guess it does. Avengers is very much a stand alone movie I can attest to that even if I wasn't in the best of health watching it, what stood out the most is just how little information from the solo films you actually needed to understand the movie, in fact there were very few references at all to the past movies that only the die hard like us would have picked up on them. So if there's a lesson here for WB in doing a JL film is to simply do a JL film, don't worry about trying to connect things with solo films or handcuff them when ultimately what transpires in those movie is not going to matter.

Easter eggs are only a part of it. You're talking:

1) Same actors - this means same universe.
2) These characters would have progressed through a certain arc which the JLA film would need to take into account or you'll have them doing two steps forward one step back. That'd stand out.
3) Thor, Cap, and Avengers were all being worked on at the same time. Try to do that with a corporate structure that is more about solo effort than collaboration within and outside of companies under that branch? You'll have them stumbling, thus why WB went the different actors route - this negates the complications.

Everyone here where it comes to combined universes are coming from a fan perspective of what they want to see rather than an in-studio perspective of why those things are near impossible with this structure. Basically it seems most people thinks WB calls all the shots where in fact it's more of a financier to all of it's sub-companies which handles the work. This is the one crucial element everybody is skipping over.

HYPOTHETICAL:

Have a Flash movie, have a Wonderwoman movie, and Justice League movie all going on at the same time. Now imagine the Justice League movie has no idea what the Flash movie or Wonderwoman movie is doing. Now to go further lets say their universes seem drastically different (something MARVEL expertly sewed together, this could have been a wreck) from each other due to their lack of communication. You would have disjointed features trying to create a whole. It wouldn't work for that reason alone.

I first noticed this when I said I knew information about Wonder Woman and posters started jumping on me about the other DC films thinking I'd automatically know about them. People think it's a cohesive everybody under the same roof type set-up when that's far from the truth.

As per AVENGERS looking easy? Anything but. Nobody would say it was easy. Even Joss doesn't say it was easy. Fans say it was. But the number one goal as filmmakers, writers, etc.? Is to make it seem seamless. Is to make it seem easy. It looks easy? You've done your job perfectly. Joss was there when pre-pro was still going on with Thor and Cap. He went with Loki after seeing, if I recall correctly, the script and dailies from Thor. This has been a long-time in the making with several pieces running at once.

The BEST way? Give everything to Legacy. Nolan haters will hate me for saying that. But, truly. Give it all to Legacy. They seem to be churning these films out. And all these films under one company? Then yeah, it would be really easy. PROBLEM IS, contrary to what people here THINK, these properties are NOT under one company - they're under several.

Best way to illustrate this is a television network. Fox has shows from Warner Brothers, Universal, Disney, etc. None of these companies interact with each other despite all being under the Fox name. Now for an instant try to combine all these shows (from multiple studios) into one universe without stumbling. You start to see where the dominos would tumble over. Just because it's under one name doesn't mean the films are under one name.

 

[ElMariachi]

If by flows nicely you mean they show flash back images to the solo film then.....yeah I guess it does. Avengers is very much a stand alone movie I can attest to that even if I wasn't in the best of health watching it, what stood out the most is just how little information from the solo films you actually needed to understand the movie, in fact there were very few references at all to the past movies that only the die hard like us would have picked up on them. So if there's a lesson here for WB in doing a JL film is to simply do a JL film, don't worry about trying to connect things with solo films or handcuff them when ultimately what transpires in those movie is not going to matter.

I suppose I should rephrase that. It meshes well with Avengers seamlessly. You can watch Captain America and it feels apart of the same universe. The movie feels like a sequel to CA and Thor from what I hear.

Glad that the movie was standalone though. I am jealous of those who have seen it already while we wait another 9 days here in the US!

 

[Mr. Immortal]

They're both risky in their own ways.

Cap kinda had to deal with being a patriotic american film in an international, not so American patriotic market.

On top of that, the majority of people are into darker stories and characters, especially the teenage demographic. I'm sure we were all there once. It doesn't get anymore Lawful Good Paladin than Cap. I'm shocked TFA that did as well as it did at the box office, but I'm thankful.

Thor, I think, was harder to adapt but easier to market and Cap was the inverse.

I mean really, I was willing to concede that those movies were somewhat safe but with all the great points everyone has brought up I don't even think it's the case. They assessed the mountains of risks and played the odds perfectly and with intelligence. And when it all boils down to it, any year+ project that takes millions of dollars to generate is not safe.

To link it back to the discussion, I think it's possible that films like Superman Returns and Green Lantern were just given too much free reign by the wrong people. Superman Returns, I don't think you can be too hard on. Singer had a great track record.

 

[jmc]

Easter eggs are only a part of it. You're talking:

1) Same actors - this means same universe.
2) These characters would have progressed through a certain arc which the JLA film would need to take into account or you'll have them doing two steps forward one step back. That'd stand out.
3) Thor, Cap, and Avengers were all being worked on at the same time. Try to do that with a corporate structure that is more about solo effort than collaboration within and outside of companies under that branch? You'll have them stumbling, thus why WB went the different actors route - this negates the complications.

Everyone here where it comes to combined universes are coming from a fan perspective of what they want to see rather than an in-studio perspective of why those things are near impossible with this structure. Basically it seems most people thinks WB calls all the shots where in fact it's more of a financier to all of it's sub-companies which handles the work. This is the one crucial element everybody is skipping over.

HYPOTHETICAL:

Have a Flash movie, have a Wonderwoman movie, and Justice League movie all going on at the same time. Now imagine the Justice League movie has no idea what the Flash movie or Wonderwoman movie is doing. Now to go further lets say their universes seem drastically different (something MARVEL expertly sewed together, this could have been a wreck) from each other due to their lack of communication. You would have disjointed features trying to create a whole. It wouldn't work for that reason alone.

I first noticed this when I said I knew information about Wonder Woman and posters started jumping on me about the other DC films thinking I'd automatically know about them. People think it's a cohesive everybody under the same roof type set-up when that's far from the truth.

As per AVENGERS looking easy? Anything but. Nobody would say it was easy. Even Joss doesn't say it was easy. Fans say it was. But the number one goal as filmmakers, writers, etc.? Is to make it seem seamless. Is to make it seem easy. It looks easy? You've done your job perfectly. Joss was there when pre-pro was still going on with Thor and Cap. He went with Loki after seeing, if I recall correctly, the script and dailies from Thor. This has been a long-time in the making with several pieces running at once.

The BEST way? Give everything to Legacy. Nolan haters will hate me for saying that. But, truly. Give it all to Legacy. They seem to be churning these films out. And all these films under one company? Then yeah, it would be really easy. PROBLEM IS, contrary to what people here THINK, these properties are NOT under one company - they're under several.

Best way to illustrate this is a television network. Fox has shows from Warner Brothers, Universal, Disney, etc. None of these companies interact with each other despite all being under the Fox name. Now for an instant try to combine all these shows (from multiple studios) into one universe without stumbling. You start to see where the dominos would tumble over. Just because it's under one name doesn't mean the films are under one name.

I don't think anyone is saying what Marvel has done was easy, making a film series like this is actually something I can applaud them for attempting, that said the results are what I look at and what I take away from it is that individual universes for each character are the far better option. If it's as difficult as you say for WB to do a similar thing to Marvel, then that's good news to me.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I don't think anyone is saying what Marvel has done was easy, making a film series like this is actually something I can applaud them for attempting, that said the results are what I look at and what I take away from it is that individual universes for each character are the far better option. If it's as difficult as you say for WB to do a similar thing to Marvel, then that's good news to me.

What I'm saying is the only real possible outcome at this time is a JLA film with different actors from the character's solo film - trying to create the sense in an audience's eyes that the character's film and JLA are two distinct properties.

 

[Tobias]

What I'm saying is the only real possible outcome at this time is a JLA film with different actors from the character's solo film - trying to create the sense in an audience's eyes that the character's film and JLA are two distinct properties.

Maybe - but TA is getting such incredible reviews, better than TDK, and is possibly poised to beat TDKR at the BO - I think it's equally as likely TA will scare WB away from doing JL. Out of fear and not being able to match what looks like the penultimate superhero film to date.

WB may lay low with Lobo in 2014, another B/C lister in 2015 and go big with Batman in 2016. And then, depending on how these films do, revisit their A listers such as GL and Flash and WW.

Either way, the better TA does the less likely WB will do a JL film anytime soon. IMO. They know, given their history, they just can't compete with Marvel when it comes to comic book films. IMO.

 

[jmc]

What I'm saying is the only real possible outcome at this time is a JLA film with different actors from the character's solo film - trying to create the sense in an audience's eyes that the character's film and JLA are two distinct properties.

Do you not think keeping the same actors is an option though in an Elseworlds type of film? I understand the argument about 'audience confusion' but I do think you have to give the audience credit to be able to tell that what they're watching clearly isn't related to anything else especially if the look and feel arent the same. Does the set up that WB has lend itself to that kind of scenario at all?

 

[cronosred]

.

Also, WWII is a very risky subject. Especially when the movie is a PG-13 summer movie and aimed at a global, young audience. The war is still a very touchy subject around the world and Marvel had to be extremely careful on how it was portrayed. You are talking about an American propaganda character in a post-9/11 era of anti-Americanism in a movie where people assume it will portray American winning WWII single-handedly. They had to deal with that and the challenge of not making the movie cheesy. Take a look at the box office returns of WWII movies. It's not an easy sell.

Makes me glad Fox has X-Men since they didn't seem to have near as much of a problem with handling it in X-Men First Class as Marvel did with Captain America.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Do you not think keeping the same actors is an option though in an Elseworlds type of film? I understand the argument about 'audience confusion' but I do think you have to give the audience credit to be able to tell that what they're watching clearly isn't related to anything else especially if the look and feel arent the same. Does the set up that WB has lend itself to that kind of scenario at all?

Same actors to general audiences = same universe.

Different actors to general audience = different universe.

You are talking about a general audience that thought Batman Begins was a prequel to Burton's Batman. And are asking if Superman will be in 'The Avengers.' Have elseworlds with same actors - their heads are gonna explode from all the confusion. Fans may be smart in these regards. GA is not.

It is well set up for what the original JLA film was going to be - different actors than those from the main films. Otherwise you'd have confusion. It can not have the same universe. Same universe imposes that you'd need to know where every character is - which means be on the same page - which the set up between studios doesn't offer up.

HOWEVER - as I said - the easiest thing to do is to just create a separate branch or give it to one company already existing. Legacy is the best option. That will have them all on the same page.

 

[CConn]

Makes me glad Fox has X-Men since they didn't seem to have near as much of a problem with handling it in X-Men First Class as Marvel did with Captain America.

Lol, no. Fox has an awful record at producing superhero movies. FF, DD, X3, Wolverine, terrible.

They just made a good choice in giving it to Vaughan. And letting him do the hard work.

 

[CConn]

I agree. One my faves and actually the movie that made me wanna read Cap's comics.

I personally would've loved a two hour version of The Ultimates' opening act.

And see, that's what it needed. Even just one scene, a single scene like the one in The Ultimates would've been enough to really set the tone as a serious war film.

Add a couple scenes of actual Nazism, and you'd have a perfect Cap movie.

 

[jmc]

Same actors to general audiences = same universe.

Different actors to general audience = different universe.

You are talking about a general audience that thought Batman Begins was a prequel to Burton's Batman. And are asking if Superman will be in 'The Avengers.' Have elseworlds with same actors - their heads are gonna explode from all the confusion. Fans may be smart in these regards. GA is not.

It is well set up for what the original JLA film was going to be - different actors than those from the main films. Otherwise you'd have confusion. It can not have the same universe. Same universe imposes that you'd need to know where every character is - which means be on the same page - which the set up between studios doesn't offer up.

HOWEVER - as I said - the easiest thing to do is to just create a separate branch or give it to one company already existing. Legacy is the best option. That will have them all on the same page.

But the question I have though is that does it really matter if the perception is a shared universe if a JL film works on its own?

 

[Ultimatehero]

You have to be more specific.

If the question is... can we have the same characters, same universe, yet combine them for a stand-alone film...

DANGER! WILL ROBINSON! DANGER!

You're forgetting that these films are often being constructed at the same exact time. You would need these teams working together to form any kind of stand-alone film. If these characters had zero arcs in their own films? Then yeah, by all means. BUT film does not work that way. Meaning "two-steps-backwards-one-step-forward" mistakes. The arcs would not easily correspond or line up. The Flash at the end of Flash 1 isn't the same Flash he was in the beginning, same for any other character. The Wonder Woman at the end of JLA would not be the same Wonder Woman from Wonder Woman 1, Wonder Woman 2 would need to incorporate this change in character.

People are looking at a much larger picture and not the smaller details in character.

Basically I'm pretty sure you have all seen tv series in which the episodes are out of order making their decisions seem awkward? Well, you'd be running into the same thing here. As a virtual series runner for four years, nevermind the whole screenwriting approach within these companies that I'm working on now, but just that - the whole virtual series experience keeping things such as character arcs over numerous writers and collaborators is an arduous task. One that MARVEL did very well because everyone was highly communicative and there was only one branch. Basically, you'd start thinking these DC films were out of order at some point due to the lack of communication going on with these properties.

It's a web. One that needs weavers. Not people randomly throwing threads.

 

[jmc]

I'll be a tad more specific then. Is there an option simply to make a series of solos each of which are treated as there own franchise/universe and then using the same actors for a JL that is also treated as its own thing, ie keep it ambiguous any connections.

 

[Ultimatehero]

No. It would confuse the audience. Studios would never take such a risk. Because in the off-set that the audience believes it's the same universe, things would go bonkers and heads would be spinning in the audience trying to weave everything together. You could say business-wise a lot in the studio system, myself included, distrust the audience but you have to remember there is a reason why we sometimes see them as slow:

Prior beliefs:
1) Batman Begins being a prequel to Tim Burton's 'Batman.'
2) Wondering if Superman will be in 'The Avengers' (some have asked this).
3) List goes on.

Basically people have a tendency to need to place something for it to make sense to them. So these people - all these arcs - none of them aligning would seem like bad filmmaking and bad writing. It would seem thrown together. Thus why it would NEED different actors.

If it's not the same universe anyways, why have the same actors? That one doesn't make sense to me... it's already a different universe, same cast just adds confusion.

And as said, best option is to give it all to one studio. That way it's in communication.

 

[jmc]

No. It would confuse the audience. Studios would never take such a risk. Because in the off-set that the audience believes it's the same universe, things would go bonkers and heads would be spinning in the audience trying to weave everything together. You could say business-wise a lot in the studio system, myself included, distrust the audience but you have to remember there is a reason why we sometimes see them as slow:

Prior beliefs:
1) Batman Begins being a prequel to Tim Burton's 'Batman.'
2) Wondering if Superman will be in 'The Avengers' (some have asked this).
3) List goes on.

Basically people have a tendency to need to place something for it to make sense to them. So these people - all these arcs - none of them aligning would seem like bad filmmaking and bad writing. It would seem thrown together. Thus why it would NEED different actors.

If it's not the same universe anyways, why have the same actors? That one doesn't make sense to me... it's already a different universe, same cast just adds confusion.

And as said, best option is to give it all to one studio. That way it's in communication.

Yeah, but what risk is there in ambiguity? If the film is good what difference does it make?