Where did DC/WB go wrong?

[Breogan]

How did they drop the ball on the evident JL movie?

Why couldn't they pull this off?

 

[The Batman]

how many whinefest threads do we really need on the DC Films board?

 

[Breogan]

how many whinefest threads do we really need on the DC Films board?

So far the only one whining here is you.
If there's other threads with this specific focus by all means Mods merge them if people are going to cry, or it comes off to "whiney". Seems a legit discussion, especially on the brink of the Avengers movie as the emblematic promos begin to emerge. It looks like a warranted comparison.

 

[OsGom]

DC was doomed when they sold the film rights to their entire universe to WB. They do not have final creative authority over their own stories and are therfore at the mercy of the studio. It looked like WB might be wising up with the resurgence of the genre but the failure of GL as well as many smaller projects has left a bad taste in their mouth for developing any other properties beside Superman or Batman.

 

[Rockstar]

Where did DC/WB go wrong?

With this P.O.S.

 

[Tobias]

You can't really compare WB and Marvel Studios. Marvel is a niche studio with a very targeted repetoire of projects. WB is the largest studio in which making DC properties is not their bread and butter.

As long as Disney Studios leaves marvel semi-independent I think we'll see that studio keep hitting them out of the park.

Until WB creates a semi-autonomous studio focused solely on making DC properties I don't think we'll see all that much from WB.

 

[Airwings]

First, I will go through some facts.

Warner Brothers make more movies than just superhero ones.
Marvel Studios make only superhero films.

Warner Brothers make DC Comics films.
Marvel Studios make Marvel Comics films

Marvel Studios own their own Marvel characters, it's connected.
Warner Brothers own DC Comics, another company, and have full right over its characters.

So far, we all know...

Sony Pictures don't own a comic book company.
20th Century Fox don't own a comic book company

Sony Pictures and 20th Century Fox show remarkable interest in making superhero films in comparison with Warner Brothers, who as owners of a whole "library" of superheroes don't have the parental love. Shouldn't it be the other way around, I must ask?
It's like a person from outside a family caring more about the kids than the parents do.
Or a major soccer club in Europe, or South America, has several players with lots of talent but don't include them in the team. Not seeing the potential these players have with the right coaching, not be training them as much as they need to become something great.
Or if we talk companies: imagine Microsoft buying Volvo but not using the full potential of the ownership.

 

[The Guard]

It's pretty clear that WB cannot devote all its resources to superhero films, and has been picking and choosing a bit. They've got various superhero films in various stages of development.

Where DC/WB went wrong was letting Marvel and associated studios develop projects for 10 years and not keeping pace with them. The Superman reboot, Green Lantern, The Flash, Wonder Woman and Justice League, these projects have only seriously been in development for the last five years or so, and in some cases even less, whereas Marvel was talking about and actively developing Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Avengers, etc. 10 plus years ago. Where WB is now may look bleak to fans, but its about where most Marvel films were 5-7 years ago, with initial or second incarnations of big budget superhero films, and a lot of "It will never happen". I expect that in 5-7 years, WB's film slate will look a lot more like Marvel's current efforts. Its my understanding that SONY and FOX are making superhero movies in part due to rights issues. WB may be making MAN OF STEEL in part for a similar reason.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I will say this, Marvel's Avenger line up is a lot easier to adapt into live-action than DC's Justice League.

 

[Tobias]

First, I will go through some facts.

Warner Brothers make more movies than just superhero ones.
Marvel Studios make only superhero films.

Warner Brothers make DC Comics films.
Marvel Studios make Marvel Comics films

Marvel Studios own their own Marvel characters, it's connected.
Warner Brothers own DC Comics, another company, and have full right over its characters.

So far, we all know...

Sony Pictures don't 't own a comic book company.
20th Century Fox don't own a comic book company

Sony Pictures and 20th Century Fox show remarkable interest in making superhero films in comparison with Warner Brothers, who as owners of a whole "library" of superheroes don't have the parental love. Shouldn't it be the other way around, I must ask?
It's like a person from outside a family caring more about the kids than the parents do.
Or a major soccer club in Europe, or South America, has several players with lots of talent but don't include them in the team even. Not seeing the potential these players have with the right coaching, not be training them as much as they need to become something great.
Or if we talk companies: imagine Microsoft buying Volvo but not using the full potential of the ownership.

In a sane world it would be the other way around. It certainly should.

But it is what it is - if Sony or Columbia had bought DC it would be a whole different story.

As I said, it is what it is. Short of WB creating a subsidiary studio I don't see anything changing.

As to why WB is failing to exploit it's DC properties I have no rational expalantion. Heck, if they are happy with the beaucoup bucks they are making sans using (except for Bats) their DC staple then license some of those characters out to other studios - and ask for a decent cut of the profits. But no, they won't do that.

Look at how SONY is desperate to keep Spiderman under it's control.

And yet WB has a raft of characters/potential franchises which it doesn't care to even try to exploit.

It is what it is and in that sense it sucks to be a DC fan.

 

[Airwings]

The answer may be that Warner Brothers are the least interested studio when it comes to making superhero films. Ironically, they also happen to hold the right to the largest number of superheroes = the whole DC Comics.
When licensing some characters out to other studios, it doesn't have to be Sony or Fox (they are already enough connected to their Marvel Comics properties). But we have Columbia, Universal, Paramount, MGM etc

 

[Tobias]

It's pretty clear that WB cannot devote all its resources to superhero films, and has been picking and choosing a bit. They've got various superhero films in various stages of development.

Where DC/WB went wrong was letting Marvel and associated studios develop projects for 10 years and not keeping pace with them. The Superman reboot, Green Lantern, The Flash, Wonder Woman and Justice League, these projects have only seriously been in development for the last five years or so, and in some cases even less, whereas Marvel was talking about and actively developing Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Avengers, etc. 10 plus years ago. Where WB is now may look bleak to fans, but its about where most Marvel films were 5-7 years ago, with initial or second incarnations of big budget superhero films, and a lot of "It will never happen". I expect that in 5-7 years, WB's film slate will look a lot more like Marvel's current efforts. Its my understanding that SONY and FOX are making superhero movies in part due to rights issues. WB may be making MAN OF STEEL in part for a similar reason.

Hope you are right but given the current corporate structure - as in no semi-independent studio dedicated to exploiting DC properties - I have my doubts.

SONY and FOX are definitely making these films to keep the rights. Though with Spiderman it's a no-brainer. That film will do gangbusters.

MOS is different. WB loses the rights whether they make it or not. It's just if they didn't make it the heirs could have sued WB for even more.

Given the recent court developments it doesn't look hopeful so MOS is probably the last Superman thing WB will do.

But that is just one character. There are so many more they could exploit on TV even if not in films. Compare Marvel's current TV development to WB's - it's pretty sad.

It's just my opinion but until the corporate structure changes vis a vis WB, DC and where these films are OK'd/developed I am not too hopeful.

 

[Lord]

I hope a semi independent studio like Marvel Studios is created inside WB, that would allow more control and for the characters to be properly used

 

[Raiden]

I hope a semi independent studio like Marvel Studios is created inside WB, that would allow more control and for the characters to be properly used

WB created a DC Entertainment Unit that supposedly gives consultation on DC superhero movies in development, but as we can see from GL and Nolan's Batman movies, it has little or no actual influence on the final product. GL failed because of Martin Campbell, and Batman's success has everything to do with Chris Nolan, not this unit.

 

[The Batman]

So far the only one whining here is you.
If there's other threads with this specific focus by all means Mods merge them if people are going to cry, or it comes off to "whiney". Seems a legit discussion, especially on the brink of the Avengers movie as the emblematic promos begin to emerge. It looks like a warranted comparison.

I'm not whining. I'm asking a question.

This thread is by no means original. The responses I'm seeing here are the same responses I've seen in other discussions. It may be a "legit" discussion, but its also a tired one, imo.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Getting Ryan Reynolds to play Hal.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

They could recover nicely with Man of Steel.

I'm hoping for the best.

 

[chiefchirpa]

Copying Marvel's formula and rushing it.

Frankly they should do a trilogy of Superman films and concentrate on them.

 

[Hypestyle]

DC needs to get more comics writers involved as writers and producers, and pick directors that are sympathetic to the source material, and don't see it just as throwaway pulp-fiction for 9 year olds in live action..

..The movies, however, should also be fun. Don't get caught up in ultra-ponderous, ultra-esoteric depictions, and making characters into something that they traditionally are not...

-- certain experimentation is expected, but some plot themes have inadvertently negative effects on character portrayals-- i.e., Superman is an absentee father..

Don't allow producers to have decades-long rights to develop characters. No more 'development hell' lasting years on end. Time is of the essence. If they can't get a project in front of cameras in 4 years, they lose the rights, period.

Integrate the movie universe. Too many films suffer from rote origin stories that assume the main character is the first supernatural element to ever appear in human history, even though, at this point, people have already seen dozens of super-hero films, from various sources. Some people may blanch at the Marvel Films approach, but this is really the first time a producer has had the guts to actually go there, with a macro-narrative.

 

[Tobias]

DC needs to get more comics writers involved as writers and producers, and pick directors that are sympathetic to the source material, and don't see it just as throwaway pulp-fiction for 9 year olds in live action..

..The movies, however, should also be fun. Don't get caught up in ultra-ponderous, ultra-esoteric depictions, and making characters into something that they traditionally are not...

-- certain experimentation is expected, but some plot themes have inadvertently negative effects on character portrayals-- i.e., Superman is an absentee father..

Don't allow producers to have decades-long rights to develop characters. No more 'development hell' lasting years on end. Time is of the essence. If they can't get a project in front of cameras in 4 years, they lose the rights, period.

Integrate the movie universe. Too many films suffer from rote origin stories that assume the main character is the first supernatural element to ever appear in human history, even though, at this point, people have already seen dozens of super-hero films, from various sources. Some people may blanch at the Marvel Films approach, but this is really the first time a producer has had the guts to actually go there, with a macro-narrative.

One obvious mistake is that WB has not used it's billion dollar Batman franchise to promote other characters.

That is Nolan's doing but with a rebooted Batman WB has to stipulate that the Bats actor and producer be open to cross pollination. In terms of the actor that would include a JL film.

I think Batman does a billion this summer and Avengers almost as much.

That sets the stage, my hope, for a rapid reboot of Batman with the first film out in 2015. Followed by a JL film in 2016 starring the new Batman actor. Plus Easter eggs in the first batman pointing to a broader DC universe.

 

[KangConquers]

For all of the complaints about WB, the fact is, Green Lantern was Geoff Johns and DC Entertainment's baby, and they dropped the ball. DC's superstar writer ****ed up his own pet franchise.

The one thing WB could possibly be blamed for is casting Ryan Reynolds. Why not just give up and cast Ashton Kutcher?

 

[jmc]

WB don't have to rely on superheroes. They're in the movie making business, no the superhero movie making business. Not being reliant means the products aren't always going to be cared for 100%. Best people just accept that WB are not a superhero studio and stop the effing complaining.

 

[DrCosmic]

For all of the complaints about WB, the fact is, Green Lantern was Geoff Johns and DC Entertainment's baby, and they dropped the ball. DC's superstar writer ****ed up his own pet franchise.

The one thing WB could possibly be blamed for is casting Ryan Reynolds. Why not just give up and cast Ashton Kutcher?

YES. Johns' earmarks were all over GL so much it's not funny. He walked it all the way through the writing process and we got this foolishness. WB gave them enough rope to hang themselves with and that's what they did.

Which puts all superheroes except Batman and Superman onto the back burner. The first mistake WB made was choosing Singer to make Superman Returns, his narrow vision did not warrant a sequel. If they had chosen someone with a more action-packed, modern or relatable vision of Superman they could have had their new mega-franchise to rival Potter.

But they went with the raw numbers decision without context. "Singer did good with those superheroes, he'll do just as well with this one." Not bothering with the qualitative difference.

After Batman Begins, they realized it was a creator issue, not just a property. Someone who knew the character and was passionate about them, and had a modern interpretation. Someone like Geoff Johns. Cue failure. I don't know if the approved the huge budget and extensions because they had stars in their eyes, or if they just wanted to give enough rope to hang this superhero business for good, but casting Reynolds was damage control, afaic.

As for the actual OP question, I'm not sure a JLA movie was ever, ever, ever the goal. It'd be like trying to make a Harry Potter-Sorcerer's Apprentice team up movie. When one (or two) of the properties are so much huger than all the rest, why bother?

 

[Tobias]

Getting Ryan Reynolds to play Hal.

Ryan is a very talented actor. On the cusp of breaking into the A list. Much better actor than Cavill.

So I don't get putting the blame, any of it, for GL's failure on him.

It was the script, the direction and the execution.

Ryan could have been to GL what Bale has been to Batman. If not for huge mistakes made by others. He is headed for major stardom despite GL's poor performance.

 

[Airwings]

Warner Brothers being unwilling to explore the DC library wasn't because of Ryan Reynolds. Their lack of interests showed itself before that.

And now some quotes:

WB don't have to rely on superheroes. They're in the movie making business, no the superhero movie making business. Not being reliant means the products aren't always going to be cared for 100%. Best people just accept that WB are not a superhero studio and stop the effing complaining.

But Sony and Fox are also in movie making business, and not in the superhero movie making business. Yet it seems they care more for their superhero projects than Warner Brothers. Explain that, mister.

But they went with the raw numbers decision without context. "Singer did good with those superheroes, he'll do just as well with this one." Not bothering with the qualitative difference.

I always had a somewhat bad feeling about this. Even before the film. X-men films were great, but it seemed very strange to me when they picked him for director.

Why not just give up and cast Ashton Kutcher?

Well, how should I put it? Kutcher is not a bad actor, he's only made a great number of bad career choices. All this comedies have given him a very bad reputation.
Comedians and comedy actors are the least liked kind of actors these days. They have to work hard and prove themself to get respect.