Where did DC/WB go wrong? - Part 1

[CConn]

Because your trying to leverage a status quo setup. If the movies are not dependent on dramatic progression for the main character, because said main character is a fixed center point, with plot happening to him? Then he actually has to be a fixed center point; there has to be an actual status quo to abide to.

The main character either has to have consistent character development, or he has to have a consistent fixed characterization. If not either, than your really not even dealing with a single character anymore.

You're really just babbling nonsensically at this point.

You can establish a character's status quo at the beginning of any standalone film, and progress the character throughout the film.

Honestly, the way you're describing things, it's like you really don't know much at all about creative writing in general. What I'm describing is done all the time in both film and literary works. It's not uncommon, and it's not even that hard to do.

 

[Tobias]

whats the purpose of doing this if you exclude Superman???

Superman has not been included in some great JL stories. The Nail, if I am not wrong, is one of them.

Batman is always there however. And logistically/financially it makes sense to use just one - given that Batman is WB's flagship and most successful franchise it's a no-brainer.

And, if WB is doing JL anytime soon, all the issues around the Supes brand mean they probably can't use the character anyway.

A JL film featuring Batman as the lead with Flash and WW and GL and MM would be huge. Superman is not needed to make the JL franchise one of WB's more lucrative.

 

[roach]

But you can't do that if one production company doesn't have the rights to both use these heroes in JL movies AND in solo movies. Which is the case. DC still has optioned the rights to many different people in hollywood over the years even though they're not DC Entertainment and still get involved. You have to remember that even JLA features Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and etc. it doesn't mean Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and etc. aren't their own independent brands.

Meaning if somebody has the rights to make a JL movie it doesn't mean they also have the rights to produce Batman & Superman movies. In the case of a JL film since the film rights holders behind JL Mortal aren't the same ones with the film rights to Batman or Superman it's safe to assume somebody else still does have the rights to the JLA movie while Legendary have Superman & Batman.

It's not all under one umbrella like ultimatehero has explained in here many times. The film rights to DC entertainment's catalog are tied in with different production companies. Not all under the same roof. Their best option is just to make stand alone movies for every brand including JL with that type of structure.

However production companies that fall under the umbrella of WB are easier to manage.

 

[roach]

Superman has not been included in some great JL stories. The Nail, if I am not wrong, is one of them.

Batman is always there however. And logistically/financially it makes sense to use just one - given that Batman is WB's flagship and most successful franchise it's a no-brainer.

And, if WB is doing JL anytime soon, all the issues around the Supes brand mean they probably can't use the character anyway.

A JL film featuring Batman as the lead with Flash and WW and GL and MM would be huge. Superman is not needed to make the JL franchise one of WB's more lucrative.

and there have been some great stories with Superman so that point has been nullified.

The issues surrounding Superman's character are about the origin which won't be in this movie anyway(and even if the family won the rights they aren't gonna keep them away from WB, they'll license them to them and we'll still have Superman movies...the family want the rights to make money off them).
It would not make sense to keep Superman out of JLA...because he'll either need the help from a big budget movie or help it

 

[Ultimatehero]

Cain, you've somewhat got it. Jeez this is hard to explain lol.

1. You'll have the same problem starting with Justice League as you would have leading into Justice League 2 and beyond. Lack of communication. Which is why I'm guessing people brought up the idea. You still wind back up where you started - lack of communication would not allow them to keep things flowing at a progressive pace. Characters would take two steps forward and one step back in their arcs.
2. Characters are like people, we are always changing and shifting all the time. As those who have seen Avengers have seen - it seems to branch into where the solo films will go from there. Which should be obvious to anyone actually in the film industry. Characters always constantly changing, unless the focus isn't really on them (Batman) or the focus is purely on a mission (Bond).

Now explaining the whole company set-up since people still don't understand lol.

Okay, imagine this:

The far left side is the production company that has said film. The middle is the managers at WB. The far right side is solely DC. The middle head is the one with the most power. It can give the production company a notion of what it wants. It also controls who gets the DC property.

Now in order to make one of these films you need a script, director, cast, and crew that all three heads agree with. If even a single head does not like where it is heading - it's back to the drawing board because that plan of attack does not work. All three heads need to agree basically.

Now let's bring in MULTIPLE DC properties. The way it is now - none of these companies have any knowledge about what is going on at the other production company. These are the key companies behind developing the film. Warner Bros. is basically just the financial backer and oversees all projects but only to make sure that they are staying within the lines. Basically what this creates is the person working on Wonder Woman knows nothing about Green Lantern, the person working on The Flash knows nothing about Batman, and so on. This can even be found within some companies themselves, hard to believe, but hey - it gets their work done and it's always top quality imo.

MARVEL doesn't have this problem, it's a much more smaller and contained beast. It is one company. Not several. And therein lays the problem.

Also therein lies peoples' confusions. Most think WB is THE film company, it's more of financial backer (as are most studios, I imagine). When the rights are distributed and through these multiple branches - communication is lost. MARVEL and DISNEY don't branch out. Thus communication doesn't break-down.

 

[Cain]

However production companies that fall under the umbrella of WB are easier to manage.

In the case of DCE's film rights holders most of them do; it doesn't mean they're going to be in communication they're their own independent operators. They're all still separate companies even though they share picture deals with a greater parent company.

Remember these companies also set up more than just superhero movies for produdtion. With all the time they need to spend doing that how could they all possibly co-ordinate to come into one meeting and agree on what to do with tying all their DC properties together as a whole? It's unfeasible considering how much more these people have in their slate outside of the DC properties they hold the film rights to.

It's only easier for say someone like Legendary cause it's one company and they have both Superman and Batman. They could get a World's Finest going probably but they want to keep Batman and Superman separate from each other anyway from what Thomas Tull and them have said in the past.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Alright, Cain does have it. Yes! I can explain things perfectly. And dude, Roach, as a guy who knows people over there - trust me on this - I know how things operate. These guys are so busy they don't even know all the details on another film at their company, all their focus is on their own individual task. Let's say there's three movies. You have the VP overseeing the two others while managing his own, then you have the two other execs managing their own smaller movies and that's all they focus on and really know. That's how it works. Betting that's how most studios work too. Main thing is - MARVEL is LEGACY pretty much, so as said - give it all to one company, no problemo.

 

[Tobias]

I don't disagree with a single thing you said, and what you said doesn't really go against what I stated either. Singer behind the helm of Superman was supposed to be incredible. It was just okay.

As they say, past performance is no guarantee of future returns.

Singer was/is too rigid in his sense of things IMO. It seemed to be his way or the highway. I got the sense he surrounded himself with yes -people. In part as he made such glaring erros with SR it's hard to believe someone on the team didn't come up andd say this project is going askew. But apparently they didn't. As much troubling as odd.

 

[roach]

so what you are saying is the only reason a JLA movie can't be done is because no one will communicate about whats going on with the characters????

I think I am gonna check out of the discussion here.

and Ultimatehero...we are all real people behind these screen names...some of us are closer to things than we appear

 

[Ultimatehero]

so what you are saying is the only reason a JLA movie can't be done is because no one will communicate about whats going on with the characters????

I think I am gonna check out of the discussion here.

and Ultimatehero...we are all real people behind these screen names...some of us are closer to things than we appear

It's that the studios themselves don't communicate. As said you can find that within the companies as well in how division of labor is handled. This works for multiple other film studios because they don't have to do a combined universe. This would be shaking things up because it has more arms than MARVEL has.

Check out dude, just telling you the facts and yeah - dude - if you look at my posts you'd see how close to it I am. And I can't really given any detailed information because of this.

 

[Cain]

so what you are saying is the only reason a JLA movie can't be done is because no one will communicate about whats going on with the characters????

I think I am gonna check out of the discussion here.

and Ultimatehero...we are all real people behind these screen names...some of us are closer to things than we appear

No man just a shared universe one. Because if whoever makes JLA wants to make spin off's starring Wonder Woman and The Flash for example they still have to consult with whoever has the rights to WW and Flash solo films. Then together they must all talk with the brass at WB and the people at DC as well etc.

I'm guessing in the case of JLM if it came out and did gangbusters Robinov would've mandated that type of co-ordination amongst all those people to make that happen since he always said those spin off's were possibilities.

 

[Tobias]

Alright, Cain does have it. Yes! I can explain things perfectly. And dude, Roach, as a guy who knows people over there - trust me on this - I know how things operate. These guys are so busy they don't even know all the details on another film at their company, all their focus is on their own individual task. Let's say there's three movies. You have the VP overseeing the two others while managing his own, then you have the two other execs managing their own smaller movies and that's all they focus on and really know. That's how it works. Betting that's how most studios work too. Main thing is - MARVEL is LEGACY pretty much, so as said - give it all to one company, no problemo.

No doubt logistically JL is harder to make than TA was for Marvel.

On top of which I suspect WB and the parites won't move on JL until after the Batman relaunch. Say 2016, though I am hoping 2015.

Given that I'd bet the earliest we will see a JL film is 2019 or 2020.

Even as TA does huge numbers. Maybe beating TDKR. I actually think TA's uber-success will scare WB away from JL for a while.

 

[Ultimatehero]

No man just a shared universe one. Because if whoever makes JLA wants to make spin off's starring Wonder Woman and The Flash for example they still have to consult with whoever has the rights to WW and Flash solo films. Then together they must all talk with the brass at WB and the people at DC as well etc.

I'm guessing in the case of JLM if it came out and did gangbusters Robinov would've mandated that type of co-ordination amongst all those people to make that happen since he always said those spin off's were possibilities.

To the bottom, yeah, I'd imagine it would give him the encouragement to either hand them all to one studio or create a separate studio to solely handle it. I actually don't see why that's not what they're doing. They start company deals all the time. Give DC an actual film branch, hire the top people for it and have it act as it's own film company basically. That right there would simplify things, unsure if that's possible though. I have limited knowledge.

First paragraph has it nailed on right. I mean, when asking a friend who was working on Wonder Woman if he knew anything about Green Lantern:

"We really don't have any information, we haven't even seen the script for it. We have as much information as you do. It is very top secret."

That's how I know what the communication regarding these properties is like at present status. Plus some execs (or Vice Presidents even) don't hear word on a property until after it's in the trades within their own company. Think that in large part has to do with the CEO. And these guys are high-up. There's just something screwy about film studios that it works out like that. But, knowing these guys and how responsible they are and awesome they are at their jobs? It's probably that they just have A LOT on their plate that they don't have time to find out about more beyond their film to shepherd along.

For some reason, despite being in WB and working on a DC property, a DC property is top secret even to the top people within company walls. Things like that with these properties? Needs to be broken down if you want a joint effort. I mean, I doubt the top people behind Thor went:

"Yeah, we really know nothing about Captain America and Avengers. It's off-limits."

Keep in mind that all were being worked on at the same time.

I don't know why it's like that. But, that is one MAJOR thing MARVEL has going in it's favor that DC absolutely needs to make a combined universe work.

 

[Tobias]

To the bottom, yeah, I'd imagine it would give him the encouragement to either hand them all to one studio or create a separate studio to solely handle it. I actually don't see why that's not what they're doing. They start company deals all the time. Give DC an actual film branch, hire the top people for it and have it act as it's own film company basically. That right there would simplify things, unsure if that's possible though. I have limited knowledge.

This is the million dollar question. Seemingly a no-brainer. Why doesn't WB create a DC Studios subsidiary a la Marvel Studios?

Clearly though, even if WB wanted to do this which any right minded studio would, the fact that the rights are scattered across different groups makes it tough.

In some cases rights can be indefinite - as with SONY and Spiderman. As long as SONY makes a Spiderman film every so many year they retain the rights.

That may be the case with some of the DC characters and these other groups.

In any case, to gather up the rights for say WW, Flash, Aquaman into a DC Sudios (would Legendary relinquish Supes and Bats) could take years and years.

WB is at a disadvantage here. Even if they wanted to do the obvious and create a DC Studios it probably would take a decade or more.

 

[Ultimatehero]

No, it really doesn't. WB has the end all say all. They took Wonder Woman back for example and just handed it to another production company. They're God, lol. I laugh, but that's the truth - they can do whatever they want. The production companies have the properties, but that's mainly because that's just how WB distributed them. Production companies have their own smaller labels which WB I doubt has any real say in - it's just a distributor. I think it might be some sort of trade-off, unsure how that works exactly. Then you have the blockbusters where they are the top brass. So creating a individual DC would be relatively easy, just don't know how the start up would be. Because all the CEOS of the production companies self-manage I guess is the word to use? Business people may understand what I'm trying to say better. It may be in a sense deleting that aspect, which I think it is - just a division under DC whereas it's more just signing deals with producers to head up their own companies that they overlook "from above."

You've got that at Fox and Sony, but those are studios. These smaller entities are production companies whereas WB is the studio. They don't have the same regulations. It works differently. Basically just 'STUDIO' v. 'PRODUCTION COMPANY.' I was going to say something about a hypothetic situation, but couldn't think of one because it didn't make sense lol. SONY for example has given the Spidey rights to another company within their walls, that company would only lose the rights if SONY lost the rights or they got into a Spidey disagreement and SONY took the rights away. Studio boss is boss, more or less. DC, I think, signed like some kind of exclusive deal with WB or else they'd have lost Batman after B&R -> Begins time or Superman time. Studios outside of Disney (or unsure how it works now) signed an agreement with those particular details for MARVEL. So it's two different levels of power and two types of contracts coming into account.

They could even kick Nolan out, but believe me - they love that guy. Has his own office. Even has his own miniature bat-cart he drives around the lot. Him and Clint Eastwoods are the BIG dogs around there.

 

[Tobias]

Bottom line as re: WB.

WB will vouchafe their Batman franchise. That is front and center. Re-launching it after the Bale interrignum.

The other A list franchises can fall into place after Batman is up again.

Before that Lobo and other second tier DC franchiss which can be made for 100 - 125 million should/may be the focus. For a few years - 2014, maybe 2015 but until the Bat is back.

At that point WB can lauch Flash, WW or maybe JL.

For now Batman is all WB has going for it - and I think they know it and that is why they are so reticent to launch a Flash or WW film.

 

[jmc]

Bond is a rare exception, Batman many would argue focus was on the villains. JMC your post shows no sense of logic - it takes a long time to make a quality product. Fans are the slow ones thinking film making is an instant art, THAT is how junk is made. Churned out with no thought. I mean, are you for real??? And Nolan? His films ARE consistent. Another thing beyond awkward and nonsenical in your post. There's a reason why there's years between franchise films DESPITE having the game plan YEARS before the first film. It's not "instant gratification" - THAT is how junk is made. So quit "we want it now" and understand thought is going into MAKING IT GOOD. THAT is what's taking time - something good they all agree with, one thing that complicates it - no other reason. And if JLA, need DIFFERENT cast to maintain a sense of unity or as said give it all to one company (No, WB is MULTIPLE companies) so it can be done easily but that is NOT the hold up just an explanation of why DC as is right now can't really have the connectedness that Marvel has.

Basically two points you need to learn JMC:

1) Quality films take time to make, bad blockbusters are spit out at a fast pace.

2) WB with these is a hydra three headed beast. Something needs to win over all three heads to get made (concerning DC products). As said that's the main complication.

You just seem to want a jumbled DC universe than a thought out one with JLA, which as said - is much easier to get quality with different cast or have all DC at one company than ''screw it, throw random parts into a blender, hope something good comes of it.'' There is a much more profitable and quality efficent way to do it that is also faster.

I don't want a freakin DC universe at all, in fact my preference is solo films and that's it, but if one must be made I'd prefer it to be a loosely based one and not one that ends up like Marvel with their batch of vanilla flavoured movies. And if my post is lacking logic it's because I'm frustrated in the amount of crap big budget movies we get every year.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Which has NOTHING to do with the amount of time it is taking. You seem to equate taking time to make a film as a bad thing when in fact it's the opposite which IS true. Only here the additional beast of the three headed dog rather than two.

 

[jmc]

Which has NOTHING to do with the amount of time it is taking. You seem to equate taking time to make a film as a bad thing when in fact it's the opposite which IS true. Only here the additional beast of the three headed dog rather than two.

Where did I say anything of the sort?

 

[Ultimatehero]

Just sounded like original complain was the wait time, "just make them!" Or could have misread.
Most common 'fan complaint.'

 

[The Guard]

"Just make them" is a pretty obvious statement to me.

Make the movies.

As a studio/creators, stop obsessing about how hard it will be to get a few connections taken care of, and prevent continuity issues, find a solution, and make the movies about the heroes and their world. Not that I think that's what WB is doing. We haven't seen solo hero/JL films fo financial reasons thus far, not because they feel the films are impossible to make.

By that I meant the amount of work it took into bringing them all together. The most striking would have been Iron Man and Thor. They solved this with magic equates technology for instance. Tone is a major one they kept in line while allowing solo films to seem drastically different. That took work.

Here's the thing. Even with that little tidbit, which is all well and good, Iron Man and Thor still have massive differences in their characters, their origins and their worlds. One is still a guy in a technologically advanced suit of armor. One is still a godlike being with great powers from an alien/Norse realm, who fights magic and monsters.

And that's the point. Bringing those different characters together for a common goal. And having a character say that "magic" equals "science" doesn't change that. It's a nice thought, but it's not anything concrete tonally. It doesn't do anything to draw their worlds together. Creating similar movies tonally, with solid characterization and a balance of humor and action, is what has accomplished this for Marvel Studios. I don't think people care about connecting this stuff as much as certain writers think. It's not like THOR strove for any real versmilitude beyond that. Fans (and general audiences, it seems) just want to see them connected. Brought together.

Constant signals no change. Also keep in mind neither Bond nor Batman really have ever had a key supporting cast (outside of just 'functions' or 'foils').

Constant means that certain elements remain constant.

M, Moneypenny, Q, Felix Leiter, Zukovsky in Brosnan's Bond movies, and Mathis in Craig's aren't key supporting cast?

Guard you're mishearing what J wanted - same actors for different interpretations of said character. Meaning an actor playing the character in Earth One and Earth Two for instance (unsure if I got that right, don't have that much knowledge lol - but I think that comparison works). Audiences would easily know it's the character with two different actors playing them. What they would have difficulty with is understanding an actor playing two DIFFERENT INCARNATIONS of said character, they'd think it's the same version.

I see. My mistake. This has always been my point: How different are these incarnations of the characters supposedly going to be that they're not recognizeable as the character? And what are those differences? And why does it even matter, hypothetically speaking, in the context of telling stories about those characters?

For instance, the Batman in JUSTICE LEAGUE: MORTAL was very much in line with the Batman of the Nolan films...a serious, relatively grounded take, with more romantic relationships in his past, and slightly more advanced gadgets (and a plane), but there was nothing to him I can't see Nolan's Batman having a little later in his career. But there with this idea that because Armie Hammer was to play him, and Bale was currently playing Batman in Nolan films, that general audiences would have been confused. About what? It's Batman. It's Batman at a different time in his life, in a different story about Batman and his friends, played by a different actor, like Bond, or numerous other characters throughout cinematic history. I know audiences aren't really intelligent, but I also think people sell the general public short.

I was the one saying different actors for different variations on said character. J was saying same actors for different variations - unless you think audiences can really get elseworlds in the film world? Even there we have different looking characters due to artist shake-ups. Basically have Keaton in all variations of Batman - now tell audiences that despite them all being played by Keaton, the films don't have anything in common. I can't even get my head wrapped around that one. It would seem like a mess.

I knew I saw the words "Elseworlds" in there. Wasn't my idea. I think it'd be way too much. I don't mind the idea of different "dimensions" being explored, but outrigth doing Elseworlds would be a bit much.

What you said actually reminds me of a point. Keaton, Kilmer, and Clooney were all part of the same Batman franchise. I don't recall the general public, even with the change in tone in BATMAN RETURNS and the wildly different tones of FOREVER and BATMAN & ROBIN, being confused about the fact that it was just Batman's continuing story.

Read the above. And tell me you're not baffled by the Keaton idea.

I'm not, actually. It's the same actor playing different versions of the character. While it's not the approach I would take, I'm not confused by the concept of an actor playing a character any moreso than I am baffled my Kevin Conroy playing different animated versions of Batman that may or may not be connected. Nor am I obsessed with what connections a particular version of Batman must have with another one, especially if the writers/artists have made it apparent that this is not the point of their project, and aren't making clear connections.

Making a Justice League movie is easy. Combining universes isn't. And using the same actor for TWO VARIATIONS that have NOTHING in common? Yeah, audiences (think Keaton example) probably would feel dizzy. This is why it's best to use different actors for different incarnations of said character - in other words two actors playing Batman, rather than one and telling them all his Batman films have nothing in common. That's why I kept bringing their previous attempt up because in-company model, that's the most efficient way currently to do it and why they were going to do it that way.

I agree that its probably best to use different actors for different incarnations of a character. I've never argued otherwise. Though Ryan Reynold's DEADPOOL may have something to say in the matter.

EXACTLY. The best means to go and the easiest is one film universe is about the JLA the other film universe is these characters solo. As it stands - combining them would just make a mess of things. But, you can easily have two film universes going on at the same time and the audience won't get confused (just two universes, same actor - yeah, even I'm confused on how that would work (Keaton example)).

Again, this obsession with comparmentalizing things into universes makes no sense, especially with no context. There doesn't need to be a separate "universe" as long as the events in solo films don't completely contradict the events in the JL film.

Chris Nolan can say all he wants about how Batman is the only hero in his universe. They can repeat that ad nauseum, but I wouldn't bat an eye if Bale decided to join a Justice League project, and it was revealed that there were other heroes out there in the universe his Batman had been part of. It would simply mean that creatively, Chris Nolan had changed his mind. Nothing in the movies would neccessarily contradict anything in the other, as long as they weren't written to do so. And if the solo movies focused on solo characters, and the JL movie focused on JL issues, this would not likely become an issue.

IF WB sets it all up at company then and only then could a combined universe JLA film be really possible. Because then you can keep all the decks in check. Not tying them along. But making sure the character progression remains at a constant - here you're also dealing with supporting characters that progress and not just the hero (as said another key difference from Bond and Burton's Batman).

Because comic book movies have been chock full of supporting characters that actually evolve in any meaningful way, and because the JL's supporting cast is really going to develop in a JL film...I don't see this being a large issue, either.

Starting with JLA - you'd still be entering the same problem with JLA2 just later on, thus the need of either option 1 or option 2. It's a great idea in theory UNTIL JLA 2.

Exactly. People saying start with JLA then, you're forgetting what happens once JLA 2 rolls about or just have only ONE JLA film - business wise that's not a good move. Plus, you'd be skipping the origins - it would be better for just two film universes because of that in my fan opinion. Gotta see things from a business and fan perspective. People may hate the business perspective, but personally find it similarly as fascinating.

Why is it not a good move businesswise once JLA 2 rolls around?

If the Justice League movies are about the Justice League, and the solo films are about the solo heroes...why would suddenly making a solo hero film near the time a second Justice League film came out cause a problem? It would be a similar dynamic to what Marvel is doing. They don't actually have to be connected, but why would their mere existence near each other cause a problem?

But you can't do that if one production company doesn't have the rights to both use these heroes in JL movies AND in solo movies. Which is the case. DC still has optioned the rights to many different people in hollywood over the years even though they're not DC Entertainment and still get involved. You have to remember that even JLA features Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and etc. it doesn't mean Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and etc. aren't their own independent brands. Meaning if somebody has the rights to make a JL movie it doesn't mean they also have the rights to produce Batman & Superman movies. In the case of a JL film since the film rights holders behind JL Mortal aren't the same ones with the film rights to Batman or Superman it's safe to assume somebody else still does have the rights to the JLA movie while Legendary have Superman & Batman.

Safe to assume...or you actually know this?

Superman has not been included in some great JL stories. The Nail, if I am not wrong, is one of them.

Superman is in The Nail. He's just not Superman for most of it. The whole point of The Nail is that Superman wasn't Superman until the league and he intervene in each other's fates...because of the nail.

Batman is always there however. And logistically/financially it makes sense to use just one - given that Batman is WB's flagship and most successful franchise it's a no-brainer.

Logistically and financially it makes sense to use both. Especially if MAN OF STEEL succeeds. Especially if you're not assuming people will respond favorably to the other characters without solo films to introduce them.

And, if WB is doing JL anytime soon, all the issues around the Supes brand mean they probably can't use the character anyway.

That's just not remotely true at this point. It's a concern, but it's very unlikely at this point.

A JL film featuring Batman as the lead with Flash and WW and GL and MM would be huge. Superman is not needed to make the JL franchise one of WB's more lucrative.

But using him would help. We're talking about a film JLA story. You lead with your best. You don't just decide not to include Superman just because it could work. You include him because he should be in a JL film. Unless you're making JL Detroit or something.

1. You'll have the same problem starting with Justice League as you would have leading into Justice League 2 and beyond. Lack of communication. Which is why I'm guessing people brought up the idea. You still wind back up where you started - lack of communication would not allow them to keep things flowing at a progressive pace. Characters would take two steps forward and one step back in their arcs.

If communication is really impossible, then there's a comparably simple fix for this. You put a plan into place that eliminates that issue. You make solo movies about solo heroes, and Justice League movies about, gasp, the Justice League and its own issues.

2. Characters are like people, we are always changing and shifting all the time. As those who have seen Avengers have seen - it seems to branch into where the solo films will go from there. Which should be obvious to anyone actually in the film industry. Characters always constantly changing, unless the focus isn't really on them (Batman) or the focus is purely on a mission (Bond)

Characters are supposed to change from film to film, but characters have rarely changed so much that they are somehow unrecognizeable as they evolve.
If characters developing is going to be a problem, then make their arc in JLA related to their role in the JLA, and the conflicts that arise because of the JLA, and have the solo films take a similiar approach. Problem solved.

Now explaining the whole company set-up since people still don't understand lol.

You should really just sticky this, or make it part of your signature. I don't know if you're doing this because of some need to constantly reaffirm and point out that you're in the business, or because you really think people don't get such a simple concept.

But you've explained this like 10, 15 times in various threads. You've implied that no one understands every time.

I've seen nothing suggesting that people "don't get" this. They just don't care.

Few here believe a JL film is impossible.

Few here believe that if WB really wants to make a lot of money with a JLA film, that execs won't pick up the phone and schedule a few business meetings, and make it work somehow, so that they can get rich/er.

Remember these companies also set up more than just superhero movies for produdtion. With all the time they need to spend doing that how could they all possibly co-ordinate to come into one meeting and agree on what to do with tying all their DC properties together as a whole? It's unfeasible considering how much more these people have in their slate outside of the DC properties they hold the film rights to.

Yes, how could they possibly find free time to come to a single meeting, or a series of meetings, to figure out to make a ****ton of money? Which is their job.

Really?

so what you are saying is the only reason a JLA movie can't be done is because no one will communicate about whats going on with the characters????

I think I am gonna check out of the discussion here.

and Ultimatehero...we are all real people behind these screen names...some of us are closer to things than we appear

I'm not going to check out...but I will call big fat BS.

If WB wanted to make a shared franchise happen...then they would have to communicate. As businesses are supposed to do when they have a shared project. As historically, businesses have done. The fact that they don't very often, or haven't, doesn't mean they couldn't in the future, or that they won't.

Because if whoever makes JLA wants to make spin off's starring Wonder Woman and The Flash for example they still have to consult with whoever has the rights to WW and Flash solo films. Then together they must all talk with the brass at WB and the people at DC as well etc.

Then that's what they would have to do. I was under the impression that this is how business worked, and that these are the elements involved in such an occurrence.

I'm supposed to believe that if they want to make hundreds of millions of dollars...that they won't communicate with each other?

I don't.

Even as TA does huge numbers. Maybe beating TDKR. I actually think TA's uber-success will scare WB away from JL for a while.

You think that a superhero team up movie making a ton of money will make WB NOT want to make one?

Based on what?

This is the million dollar question. Seemingly a no-brainer. Why doesn't WB create a DC Studios subsidiary a la Marvel Studios?

Because they obviously, as a business, don't feel they need one at this juncture. Which means they probably, in their top secret discussions, know something we don't.

 

[metaphysician]

I'm sorry, I stopped reading when I saw the words "find a solution."

"Find a solution" is not a step. "Find a solution" is barely even a goal. "Find a solution" is the catchphrase of people who want to make someone *else* do the work, while loudly declaring how easy it is to do.

Is it really that hard to admit that some things are not easy to do at all?

 

[The Guard]

You couldn't be bothered to read or respond anything to else, but you bothered to make that post?

"Find a solution" means "find a solution". If there's a problem, you find a solution to it.

I wasn't asked to lay out a step by step plan for a franchise, and to bankroll it with hundreds of millions of dollars. I responded to the suggestion and statements that things such as having solo films interact with a Justice League film pose a difficult challenge. There are challenges, yes. There are solutions to such problems. Not every challenge poses an impossible task. Businesses, especially creative businesses, make plans and they find solutions to problems. That is what they do in order to make money. That is what will have to be done if there is to be a Justice League franchise, a shared universe, or other solo hero films from WB.

I and several others have explained potential solutions to the problems people have pointed out for the concept of a shared universe. I never said they were easy to do. Obviously they aren't, because the people pointing out problems in the first place haven't been able to reason out responses to them, hence they still think they are nigh insurmountable problems.

I have never said it was was easy to do. But Is it really that hard to admit that some problems are not as hard to solve as some people think they are just because they didn't think of a solution, to recognize that comic book writers have been able to traverse and find solutions for these kinds of creative issues for decades, and that maybe people are making a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to the potential shared universe concept simply because it has taken WB a long time to begin production on one?

 

[Ultimatehero]

Guard, dude, no offense but do you know what 'foils' means? You just listed foils. Those characters basically just serve as plot functions. Alfred, for example, would be a 'function' in the Burton Batman movies as well. Now look at the supporting cast of most films and you'll see that a lot more attention is brought to them. Not saying 'foils' or characters that just serve as 'plot functions' are wrong or bad in any way - it just depends on the movie and what is needed. This upcoming Bond film is really the first time we'll get a fully well-rounded M. Craig's may be building upon it, but it's way too early to tell and would be the first to serve more than just progressing the plot.

With Conroy you have one key thing. ANIMATION. Same with comics. It's basically the same as different actors. Technically it's not. But on the design level there is a difference. You've got, I have no idea, five Batman comics running at the same time all of which are different and all of which have a different artistic design of the character. Same with animation. An actor doesn't have that range in physicality.

Events vs. Character. AGAIN. Events vs. Character. This is something that fans don't think about, but it is the most crucial in film-making. All characters change and undergo some arc unless they're foils. Just like people, that change is natural. To hell with the events, events don't matter. It's the character that matters and needs to progress and seem in line with what came before and comes after - WITH NO OTHER CONNECTIVE TISSUE IN SIGHT.

POINT IS - CHANGE. EVERYTHING CHANGES. Constantly. Only films in which that doesn't happen - Bond where it's just focused on the mission, that age old phrase of the only thing you can be sure about is it doesn't change? Bond primary example. Burton's Batman - main focus was on the villains done away with.

No. Not release date. Same problem. CONTINUITY. People are probably saying partly start with JL to make it easier - solves complications of solo films leading up to it. HOWEVER the same complications would arrive after. Solo films leading up to JL2. It wouldn't be circumnavigating the problem. It would be delaying it.

Caine has it wrong, some things he's saying are right - but I can and should never be a teacher lmaol. Look at all of my posts if you want to know how WB and lack of communication works. That's where he tried to picks things up from. But, I'm not great at describing business terms lmaol. I can do - I just can't ever teach.

Dude, gasp, you've just said what I've been saying the past couple of pages. You'd align with option 2 of setting them a part. Like WB's original plan was. Option 1 is a DC live action film studio - why they're not doing that I have no idea. Maybe it's more complicated than I think to do that.

Once again you're going with option 2. You're not really pulling things out of a hat. You're more just repeating me at this point lol.

Dude, Caine is a primary example of how most on here get confused. Also it's saying why the miscommunication is the key issue to those who want a shared universe. All I'm doing is explaining the logistics.

In order to do that you need a complete overhaul. It's like that with every project. And you'll need them all on the same page from day 1. When these projects are 'top secret' from one another - not sharing information for whatever reason - as it is now. Then yeah, you've got a problem that needs to be fixed. There's few meetings even WITHIN their own companies about THEIR OWN films. That speaks for itself and how busy they are - they don't even know that much about a film at their own company being worked on by somebody next door. <- This means a lot to current communication within companies at the moment.

Hey dude, call it whatever you want. All I'm doing is saying how it's done over there. How crowded it is over there. And how things are for the execs and VP at a couple companies over there. And as said you would need a complete over-haul of how DC properties are handled. Step # 1 make DC property activities known to others involved with DC properties - NOT "This can only be known by our company and the head of WB." That's cutting off any form of collaboration from the start.

Nothing's 'top secret.' Why is it so many like these 'top secret' notions? If there was something going on - there would be something going on. And it'd be really easy, well - for some, to know and sadly there is nothing going on.

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE (yeah, numbers are mixed up):

Option 1: JL and Solo films are completely different universes (as per WB's original plan - different actors).
Option 2: Change the way business is done in film studios like WB to allow a more cohesive communicative collaboration. This is MUCH more of a challenge than what MARVEL is doing with Disney due to having so many branches. Allow them to see material on other DC properties (right now, that's not going on).
Option 3: Create a DC entertainment production company that handles, or perhaps oversees, all of which is going on - allowing (not restricting) passage of information from one company to the next within Warner Bros. walls.

Any three options is the way to go. A change needs to be made or leave it divided (as WB's original intentions, which make complete sense). And yes, in order for there to be communication a change in how things are done does need to be made as you can probably see how complicated this can even get within THEIR OWN companies. Status Quo isn't going to fix things. The solutions are fairly obvious and listed above of what can be implemented and what would need to be done in order to implement it.

Collaboration and communication is all great and well. I want it. Don't need to keep stressing it. But in order to do that? You'd need to change the way the properties are currently being handled - only that company with it and the head of WB knowing what's going on with it. Basically you need to delete secrecy within the studio as a whole regarding these projects. Why it's like that... no idea...

 

[The Guard]

Guard, dude, no offense but do you know what 'foils' means? You just listed foils. Those characters basically just serve as plot functions. Alfred, for example, would be a 'function' in the Burton Batman movies as well. Now look at the supporting cast of most films and you'll see that a lot more attention is brought to them. Not saying 'foils' or characters that just serve as 'plot functions' are wrong or bad in any way - it just depends on the movie and what is needed. This upcoming Bond film is really the first time we'll get a fully well-rounded M. Craig's may be building upon it, but it's way too early to tell and would be the first to serve more than just progressing the plot.

Couple of things...

One, I have only a vague idea what you're referring to me having just listed. I've written a lot today, and unless you quote what I "just" listed, I have no idea what you're talking about. Nor am I going to go back through everything I wrote to see what it was.

I've known what foils are since about first grade. I call them "foils". Not "plot functions". Foils often are part of the supporting cast, but they don't have to be. A foil is a type of character interaction. It does not denote the level of screentime or importance of a character. Two leading characters could easily be foils, and supporting characters can be foils as well.

With Conroy you have one key thing. ANIMATION. Same with comics. It's basically the same as different actors. Technically it's not. But on the design level there is a difference. You've got, I have no idea, five Batman comics running at the same time all of which are different and all of which have a different artistic design of the character. Same with animation. An actor doesn't have that range in physicality.

I didn't say there wasn't a difference. I said its about as confusing to me as the other example I gave. That is, an actor playing different versions of a character does not confuse me. It's an actor playing another version of a character. That, in itself, is not confusing. I also said I wouldn't do it that way myself.

Events vs. Character. AGAIN. Events vs. Character. This is something that fans don't think about, but it is the most crucial in film-making. All characters change and undergo some arc unless they're foils. Just like people, that change is natural. To hell with the events, events don't matter. It's the character that matters and needs to progress - WITH NO OTHER CONNECTIVE TISSUE IN SIGHT.

What don't fans think about now? Character? Events? I assure you, fans who care about the adaption process think about those things all the time.

POINT IS - CHANGE. EVERYTHING CHANGES. Constantly. Only films in which that doesn't happen - Bond where it's just focused on the mission, that age old phrase of the only thing you can be sure about is it doesn't change? Bond primary example. Burton's Batman - main focus was on the villains done away with.

I'm not sure why you're even making this point. What's its context in the discussion about Justice League and shared universes?

Again, characters may change and develop from film to film, but that change rarely renders characters, especially superhero characters, unrecognizeable. Without specific, realistic examples and some context, I don't see this as an issue.

No. Not release date. Same problem. CONTINUITY. People are probably saying partly start with JL to make it easier - solves complications of solo films leading up to it. HOWEVER the same complications would arrive after. Solo films leading up to JL2. It wouldn't be circumnavigating the problem. It would be delaying it.

I'm unclear how we got from Burton's Batman to release dates.

What problems would starting with JL and releasing solo films afterward create?

Dude, gasp, you've just said what I've been saying the past couple of pages. You'd align with option 2 of setting them a part. Like WB's original plan was. Option 1 is a DC live action film studio - why they're not doing that I have no idea. Maybe it's more complicated than I think to do that.

Technically I said what I've been saying for years now, but fair enough. I'd align with eliminating the issue entirely if it's as corporately complex as you've stated. I wouldn't set the various heroes apart, or suggest that they don't exist in the same universe, I just wouldn't go out of my way either to solidify what is and isn't connected, and I would make sure nothing was done in solo films that drastically affected a JL franchise, and vice versa. In other words, I wouldn't create problems for myself and for my franchises by overthinking the concept. That's assuming it's as complex and difficult a process as you've stated it is

Once again you're going with option 2. You're not really pulling things out of a hat. You're more just repeating me at this point lol.

I've been stating what I want for years now, which is largely based on what the comic books have done for the most part. Told stories about these individual heroes and their league of heroes, some that are mentioned in other heroes' titles/franchises, and some that aren't. No one is repeating you. Don't worry, I'm not taking credit for the idea, and you shouldn't either.

Dude, Caine is a primary example of how most on here get confused. Also it's saying why the miscommunication is the key issue to those who want a shared universe. All I'm doing is explaining the logistics.

"Most"?

Nope.

What specifically about Cain's comments make you think they don't understand what you've been trying to explain?

In order to do that you need a complete overhaul. It's like that with every project. And you'll need them all on the same page from day 1. When these projects are 'top secret' from one another - not sharing information for whatever reason - as it is now. Then yeah, you've got a problem that needs to be fixed. There's few meetings even WITHIN their own companies about THEIR OWN films. That speaks for itself.

That they get what they need to get done in those few meetings?

And as said you would need a complete over-haul of how DC properties are handled. Step # 1 make DC property activities known to others involved with DC properties - NOT "This can only be known by our company and the head of WB." That's cutting off any form of collaboration from the start.

So...they need to communicate if they're to have a shared universe. We've established that.

Nothing's 'top secret.' Why is it so many like these 'top secret' notions? If there was something going on - there would be something going on. And it'd be really easy, well - for some, to know and sadly there is nothing going on.

I was being tongue in cheek.