Why Can't DC Get it right? - Part 1

[ЯɘvlveR]

we've heard of justice league, flash and wonder woman, so long as we get those three as well, I'm happy.

 

[Mr.M]

The majority of the people who went to see the Harry Potter films read the books beforehand. They were familiar with the author and waited with bated breath for each edition in the series. If her name wasn't a draw, do you think Warner Brothers would have made that kind of announcement or would have signed her on to write screenplays? I mean seriously?

Until her works draw outside of the Harry Potter series, her name attached alone proves nothing in terms of box office. How successful will this new series be? Have any books from the new series been published yet, and if so, how many copies have they sold? How closely can this tie into the Harry Potter brand and leach off the existing fanbase? All unanswered questions and hardly a viable solution to end all of WB's conundrums for major tentpole content this decade.

 

[dnno1]

Until her works draw outside of the Harry Potter series, her name attached alone proves nothing in terms of box office. How successful will this new series be? Have any books from the new series been published yet, and if so, how many copies have they sold? How closely can this tie into the Harry Potter brand and leach off the existing fanbase? All unanswered questions and hardly a viable solution to end all of WB's conundrums for major tentpole content this decade.

That's not what the WB thinks. They are willing to go public and announce Rowling as the script writer to a new franchise they feel that confident. Remember, she already has a track record for writing the source material for 8 Harry Potter films, which made over $7 billion. That has to count for something. Sure, it won't be exactly Harry Potter, but people recognize the author and her work.

 

[regwec]

Rowling is also a master of cynical plagiarism and audience exploitation: a perfect recipe for Summer tent pole billions.

 

[ЯɘvlveR]

Rowling is also a master of cynical plagiarism and audience exploitation: a perfect recipe for Summer tent pole billions.

t: brilliant.

 

[Lord]

Rowling is also a master of cynical plagiarism and audience exploitation: a perfect recipe for Summer tent pole billions.

Since when?

 

[Loki882]

Rowling is a master of audience manipulation, you mean like EVERY OTHER successful artist in history, I'm shocked.

 

[dnno1]

Rowling is a master of audience manipulation, you mean like EVERY OTHER successful artist in history, I'm shocked.

What audience? She was writing books. If there was anyone she manipulated, it was her readers, who were children and fans of fantasy.

 

[Loki882]

What audience? She was writing books. If there was anyone she manipulated, it was her readers, who were children and fans of fantasy.

I was jokingly mocking the post above that claimed that Rowling was manipulating her audience, I don't actually believe that myself. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

[Red Mask]

What audience? She was writing books. If there was anyone she manipulated, it was her readers, who were children and fans of fantasy.

How would you compare that to the Twilight fans, who included women in their thirties?

 

[Lord]

Rowling is manipulating nobody, people buy her books and wath the movies because they like the universe, plot and characters, no different than Tolkien or Star Wars, and i don't see many saying they manipulated audiences.

 

[regwec]

I think some of you may not realise what "manipulate" means. Whether you are using the term pejoratively or not, you can hardly deny that it is what Rowling (along with Disney, Twilight, and other successful, franchised mass entertainment) does.

I would distinguish the phenomena from JRR Tolkien, to a degree, because the explosion of popularity LOTR enjoyed came after the book was released and the film rights had been sold quite cheaply. Rowling had the good fortune (and the skill) to keep milking a cash cow when it was most in demand. I am sure she will bring the same nous to this new, highly commercial project.

Edit: Only on reading back do I notice that I didn't in fact use the term "manipulation". I used "exploitation", which is precisely what I meant.

 

[Loki882]

How is she exploiting anyone, but giving them a product that lots of people obviously want?

 

[regwec]

She's exploiting a market. 'Exploit' has a broader meaning than you imply, ie exploiting shale gas.

 

[Octoberist]

What audience? She was writing books. If there was anyone she manipulated, it was her readers, who were children and fans of fantasy.

It sounds like you don't have a firm grasp on your argument.

 

[Loki882]

I actually wouldn't mind Rowling writing a DC film script at some point. I don't know if she can do it, or would do it, but it'd be cool to see her at least try.

 

[The Guard]

Exceptions notwithstanding, there wouldn't be a Guardians of the Galaxy movie today if Iron Man had not been a success, and so on. There is a Guardians of the Galaxy movie today for many reasons, but among them are that Marvel has built confidence in their ability to adapt their library (something WB has failed to do, and lacks the confidence to do), and that Marvel has established a level consumer confidence that means people will go watch something because it says "Marvel".

That's not trivial. What's at issue is that Marvel is consistently and successfully mining their IPs, even the obscure ones, while WB stares at the character stable and scratches it's head.

I don't think anyone would consider it trivial. Anyone paying attention knows that Marvel has put more variety onscreen in the most recent years and that they have built consumer confidence.

My point is, and always has been, regarding this "Rocket Raccoon" phenomenon, that simply saying "Rocket Raccoon is appearing onscreen prior to X hero" as an argument means next to nothing.

As for the whole "Scratches its head" thing...this seems to be a fanboy assumption more than anything. WB, to my knowledge, has never really said "We just don't know to make this stuff work". I think we all know that any talk about waiting for the right approach, etc, is more or less just an excuse and a way for WB to maintain some level of public and press interest in projects that aren't priorities at the moment for whatever reason. They simply aren't that dumb or inept an organization that they can't get a movie made if that's what they really want to do. If they really and truly wanted to make, say, a WONDER WOMAN movie, they would find a script that works (they have several) and make the movie. Just like any other film they have in development. They haven't spent the money to make solo films of lesser DC heroes because they don't need to, and haven't needed to, or haven't felt the need to do so, based on business reasons. They have an entire slate of other franchises/solo films that they make money from.

Yes, and in a less absolute sense, that is what I'm talking about. You wouldn't do Rocket Raccoon--or your film--any favours by compromising the concept, or by apologizing for the concept. That is the Marvel philosophy (though again, less absolutely) when it comes to bringing their material to other media, film or otherwise, be it Rocket Raccoon or Captain America. It doesn't make sense to compromise the brand.

True, and its an admirable approach, but again, I'm not sure where WB has really "compromised" or apologized for any of their major heroes in recent years, at least on the big screen.

They are, largely, not making Superhero movies (again noting that Batman and Superman are the exception to most everything I'm saying, or have said), aside from the odd dud followed by periods of conspicuous silence. I was speaking largely with regard to their live action television efforts, as far as apologizing is concerned. My rant did get a little carried away so that point may have become confused. That said, I would speculate that apologetics are part of the reason films like Flash and Wonder Woman never get off the ground at WB. I can hear it now: "Does she have to have a lasso? What if Ares is a CEO instead of a greek god? We can call him John Ares!"

The TV stuff we've seen is a lot less about "apologizing" to me, and more about adapting characters on a strict television budget and into that medium, period. The minimization of characters and their world/mythologies when it comes to television is not a new approach, and it is in fact an approach that has been utilized on various TV shows for a long time now: We've seen it in The Incredible Hulk, The Amazing Spider-Man, Wonder Woman, Lois and Clark, Smallville, etc. Certain approaches are simply cheaper, and easier, and from a business and production standpoint, make sense.

 

[Loki882]

I don't see how something like Man of Steel is "apologizing" for Superman's existence. The whole point was Superman becoming the hero that he's destined to be.

 

[Saint]

My point is, and always has been, regarding this "Rocket Raccoon" phenomenon, that simply saying "Rocket Raccoon is appearing onscreen prior to X hero" as an argument means next to nothing.

And I did not merely say that; it is demonstrative of my larger argument.

As for the whole "Scratches its head" thing...this seems to be a fanboy assumption more than anything. WB, to my knowledge, has never really said "We just don't know to make this stuff work". I think we all know that any talk about waiting for the right approach, etc, is more or less just an excuse and a way for WB to maintain some level of public and press interest in projects that aren't priorities at the moment for whatever reason. They simply aren't that dumb or inept an organization that they can't get a movie made if that's what they really want to do. If they really and truly wanted to make, say, a WONDER WOMAN movie, they would find a script that works (they have several) and make the movie. Just like any other film they have in development. They haven't spent the money to make solo films of lesser DC heroes because they don't need to, and haven't needed to, or haven't felt the need to do so, based on business reasons. They have an entire slate of other franchises/solo films that they make money from.

I'll acknowledge that as a possibility, but I will also argue that when you have a project like the Flash cycle through talent--what was it, four directors?--with nothing ever getting off the ground, there is clearly a desire to make the project happen. If they didn't want it to happen they wouldn't keep trying. So why does nothing materialize? Likewise, the will they, won't they nature of Justice League. That project was almost off the ground when they rolled it back up. This indicates to me a level of indecisiveness, of uncertainty that tells me they aren't getting anything done because they don't know what to do.

You're right about it being all about business--but I don't agree it's about not "needing" other franchises. As a business their reason for being is to make money; if they thought the Flash would make that money they would make it, regardless of whether they need it or not. They haven't made it because they don't think it's safe, not the way Batman and Superman are safe. I contend they don't think it's safe because 1) because they do not know how to execute it, and 2) because they lack confidence (the confidence that comes from understanding) in the majority of DC IP.

True, and its an admirable approach, but again, I'm not sure where WB has really "compromised" or apologized for any of their major heroes in recent years, at least on the big screen.

I agree, again with the caveat that they haven't brought much to bear in that regard anyway. I give them credit for Green Lantern, because I think from a studio standpoint they actually did most things right--it was the talent, in that instance, that dropped the ball.

The TV stuff we've seen is a lot less about "apologizing" to me, and more about adapting characters on a strict television budget and into that medium, period. The minimization of characters and their world/mythologies when it comes to television is not a new approach, and it is in fact an approach that has been utilized on various TV shows for a long time now: We've seen it in The Incredible Hulk, The Amazing Spider-Man, Wonder Woman, Lois and Clark, Smallville, etc. Certain approaches are simply cheaper, and easier, and from a business and production standpoint, make sense.

This is not untrue, but it doesn't disagree with my position. There are certainly TV shows out there with higher production values, and though I don't know how much money WB spends on a show like Arrow, I imagine it's probably not as much as is being spent on Game of Thrones or SHIELD. Equally, I think what's telling is that they're making a TV show like Arrow--not a film.

Again I think it's about a lack of confidence in the IP to perform at the higher level. As a low risk, dumbed down answer to Smallville, they expect it to perform to expectations. They don't expect it to perform on the big screen, or as a higher budget project, or don't know how to make it perform as one of those. Whether it's lack of confidence creatively or financially is the same, in the end, because a lack of financial confidence suggests to me that they don't understand the IP creatively.

To circle back, this is the difference between the Marvel and WB approach, and why I think "DC can't get it right." As I said, Marvel ran their own show from the beginning. That's an environment where the people running the show understood the IP they were working with and what could be done with it. Because DC never had the opportunity to work that way, I suspect the IP was never in the hands of people with that level of understanding, because it was always in the hands of DC's corporate masters.

 

[dnno1]

I was jokingly mocking the post above that claimed that Rowling was manipulating her audience, I don't actually believe that myself. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

The post above said that she was exploiting them, not manipulating them. I don't think she was intentionally manipulating her readers, but rather giving them what they wanted to read.

How would you compare that to the Twilight fans, who included women in their thirties?

That would be the same effect.

 

[dnno1]

It sounds like you don't have a firm grasp on your argument.

My argument is that Rowling hasn't manipulated (movie-going) audiences and it there was any crowd that was, it would have been her readers --to buy the next book, but that only would have been because she wrote good stories.

 

[Tec15]

I wish I could believe this comment mattered,

"Snip"

What this whiny diatribe ignores is the many, many changes and embarrassed apologetics the Marvel movies indulged in. "The Asgardians aren't Gods, they are like advanced Aliens from another Dimension and stuff. Heh, Heh let's ironically laugh at how corny Captain America was and attempt to justify his existence. Oh don't look at how different all our Iron Man villains are from the comics versions, but that's okay because no one gives a **** about Iron Man villains."

The thing is, I can see why some of those changes were necessary. Film and comics are different mediums and what works on the page, wont necessarily work on the screen. But if any DC property makes any of the same comparable changes, then we will again hear the shrill, whiny cries "OMG they are embarrassed by the source material. Why can't they embrace it like Marvel? Rocket Raccoon, Rocket Raccoon, Eeleventy!!!!!" Ad Nauseum.

 

[Saint]

What this whiny diatribe ignores is the many, many changes and embarrassed apologetics the Marvel movies indulged in. "The Asgardians aren't Gods, they are like advanced Aliens from another Dimension and stuff. Heh, Heh let's ironically laugh at how corny Captain America was and attempt to justify his existence. Oh don't look at how different all our Iron Man villains are from the comics versions, but that's okay because no one gives a **** about Iron Man villains."

No, I'm not ignoring the changes marvel has made--I simply recognize that degrees exist. There is a difference between continuity zealotry and what I am talking about, which is emphasizing adherence to the core truths of the IP and the brand.

That means that Captain America isn't Peter Price, fashion designer who is unjustly killed by street-thugs and brought back to life by the ancient spirit of America to put the wrong things right. He's the same basic character he has always been (hell, they even used "vita-rays" in his origin; even I didn't expect that); only the presentation has changed.

This is an important distinction--because Marvel has certainly made bad choices when they have gone beyond changing the presentation. Mandarin is a great example. There's no reason Mandarin (the real Mandarin) couldn't have worked on film. If they can put the cosmic cube in Captain America they can put the ten rings in Iron Man 3. As with pretty much everything people complain "won't work" because "comics and film are two completely different mediums", it is merely a matter of presentation.

So no, I don't ignore the changes they've made--indeed, some of them frustrate me (they also wasted Extremis in Iron Man 3). I do, however, recognize that, with the exception of the occasional misstep, their approach has largely involved celebrating the material and growing the brand, as opposed to the alternative. As such I afford them a level trust, because they've earned it. Fine, you ruined the Mandarin, and that pisses me off--but I can still reasonably expect that you won't make the Black Panther a white guy from Manhattan.

"The Asgardians aren't Gods, they are like advanced Aliens from another Dimension and stuff.

As an aside, Asgard has always been from another dimension, a level of uncertainty regarding what, exactly, the Asgardians are has been suggested in the comics, and certainly Kirby's original designs imply a culture where it's unclear exactly how much of what's being seen is scientific, and how much is supernatural in nature.

 

[p4poetic]

No, I'm not ignoring the changes marvel has made--I simply recognize that degrees exist. There is a difference between continuity zealotry and what I am talking about, which is emphasizing adherence to the core truths of the IP and the brand.

That means that Captain America isn't Peter Price, fashion designer who is unjustly killed by street-thugs and brought back to life by the ancient spirit of America to put the wrong things right. He's the same basic character he has always been (hell, they even used "vita-rays" in his origin; even I didn't expect that); only the presentation has changed.

This is an important distinction--because Marvel has certainly made bad choices when they have gone beyond changing the presentation. Mandarin is a great example. There's no reason Mandarin (the real Mandarin) couldn't have worked on film. If they can put the cosmic cube in Captain America they can put the ten rings in Iron Man 3. As with pretty much everything people complain "won't work" because "comics and film are two completely different mediums", it is merely a matter of presentation.

So no, I don't ignore the changes they've made--indeed, some of them frustrate me (they also wasted Extremis in Iron Man 3). I do, however, recognize that, with the exception of the occasional misstep, their approach has largely involved celebrating the material and growing the brand, as opposed to the alternative. As such I afford them a level trust, because they've earned it. Fine, you ruined the Mandarin, and that pisses me off--but I can still reasonably expect that you won't make the Black Panther a white guy from Manhattan.

As an aside, Asgard has always been from another dimension, a level of uncertainty regarding what, exactly, the Asgardians are has been suggested in the comics, and certainly Kirby's original designs imply a culture where it's unclear exactly how much of what's being seen is scientific, and how much is supernatural in nature.

Spot on.

 

[Red Mask]

I'd don't put much stock on the intelligence of the audience. But when the filmmakers decide to take a modern approach to an outdated idea - like the Mandarin - I have to hope the audience are just as smart to catch on.