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

[roach]

Don't you know? It doesn't matter how much someone gets the essence of the characters. Batman was wearing the wrong shade of accouterments, Gotham had the wrong silhouette of architecture, and that irrevocably means this interpretation is terrible. Don't you know how the mind of a fanboy works? Forget characterization, structure and filmmaking, as long as the batbelt is the right color of yellow it is the best film ever.

Or Superman needs to punch things or smile.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I keep hearing this excuse and for the life of me I can never comprehend it.

What excuse? I wasn't making any excuses. i was proffering the reality of the situation. It makes me sad as a comic book fan. But it is what it is.

Why does WB NEED to be only a comic book movie studio to justify making comic book movies?

You tend to do better at stuff if they are the only things you've got. As opposed to having them in tandem with other great toys.

As a company with access to a bonanza of IPs that are part of one of the must profitable genres in cinema today, and considering they are strapped for franchises and are generally in the money-making business,

Obviously they don't feel that they can rely on only comic book movies to give it the same undivided attention as DC. As long as they have the power to buy out other potential franchises.

I mean, would you really see the other studios sitting on what they have if they owned DC?

Actually, yes. Yes I would. No other studio can give comic book movies the attention and care they deserve unless it is made by a studio like Marvel Entertainment, where they have people that are genuine comic nerds, and limited only making those films.

Fox makes X-men ad nauseam, just like WB worships Batman, they are attempting something with Fantastic Four after prior failure, somewhat mirroring WB's situation with Superman. But what about Daredevil? They couldn't care less about that property. Similarly, SONY only cares about its own superstar, Spider-man. What about Ghost Rider? He is back with Marvel as we speak, along with Daredevil. My point? If other studios owned DC they too would focus on the big guns, Batman and Superman, ignoring the smaller ones.

 

[SpiderCool]

DC just needs to get the rights to The X-Men and they'll be fine.

 

[Kevin Smith]

From Reddit:

I've been talking a lot with my friends in the last couple of days about the difference between Marvel movies and DC movies, and this really sort of epitomizes it.




Warner Bros seems like it feels the need to be constantly apologizing to the audience for making super hero movies.
"We're sorry this is a Batman movie. We know it's stupid. Don't worry, we won't give Bane his super-drugs, there won't be any Robin, and after the first movie, it won't look like Gotham. It'll just be like any generic modern American city. Please try to overlook the guy in the bat suit if you can."




"We're sorry this is a Superman movie. We'll try not to call him that in the movie if we can, we won't give him a heroic code of conduct, and wherever possible we'll shy away from the things that people associate with the concept of 'Superman'. We know it's embarrassing and awful, this whole 'superhero' thing. Just bear with us. We promise we'll give you some explosions later on."




"We're sorry you're watching a Green Lanern movie. We don't get the character or care about him either. It's so ******ed and gay. We'll just... we'll just try to get this over with fast, alright? We're really sorry that we've produced a movie with this character in it."




"We're not going to do Wonder Woman. There's not enough ways to apologize for that."




Whereas Marvel? They're super-heroey as ****. They make no apologies, nor do they feel they need to. Gun-toting raccoon? Walking, talking, ass-kicking tree? Green-skinned warrior woman? Norse god? Flashy robot suit? **** yes. Let's do this, let's have fun with it and presume that an audience who is paying to see a super-hero movie WANTS to see a super-hero movie and doesn't need any snide dismissal of the concept from the filmmakers to feel okay with it. They've demonstrated that they're okay with it by paying the price of admission.




Marvel embraces the joy and the madness of it. DC cringes from it like a nerd that's gotten too many wedgies from the schoolyard bullies and has promised not to like the things he likes anymore.

I love the Nolan trilogy and MOS but he is kind of right.

Truth.


And GL was terrible. Nobody got or understood the character at all. They tried to make it Iron Man when they should have been trying to make it Star Trek.

 

[Kevin Smith]

Don't you know? It doesn't matter how much someone gets the essence of the characters. Batman was wearing the wrong shade of accouterments, Gotham had the wrong silhouette of architecture, and that irrevocably means this interpretation is terrible. Don't you know how the mind of a fanboy works? Forget characterization, structure and filmmaking, as long as the batbelt is the right color of yellow it is the best film ever.

Did it ever occur to you that they could do both? It's all part of the character.

DC just needs to get the rights to The X-Men and they'll be fine.

Yeah, I agree. That seems to be all they want to make with their characters,
"X-Men" movie like takes on them. I thought we'd progressed past this by now with movies like Spider-Man (Raimi), Iron Man, etc. Guess not.

 

[Mr.M]

This may have no basis, but I believe had Snyder delivered a more critically acclaimed movie, there might have been more movement from Nolan's camp to merge these universes together. Or at least more pressure on Bale, since the argument that JL is a project beneath his talents would have been weakened had Snyder delivered a critical success. Albeit, the odds were against Zack coming off SR and over the top expectations (from yet another amazing trailer the film could never live up to), but it doesn't excuse him for delivering something that again failed to meet expectations.

There is no question WB is going to get big talent to fill the shoes of the new Batman, but how are they going to attract stars for these other heroes? And directing talent? You need talent if you want these characters to work, and I am not even sure there is talent exists out there right now, in terms of directors that can bring these characters to life on the big screen. If it is out there, WB certainly has not found it, and they keep bringing in the wrong people. Snyder failed to deliver on Watchmen, and once again underachieved with MoS, and this is supposed to be the main vision behind the DC universe? It doesn't make sense.

 

[Lord]

Don't you know? It doesn't matter how much someone gets the essence of the characters. Batman was wearing the wrong shade of accouterments,

His costume changes all the time, not the first time the movies change them

Gotham had the wrong silhouette of architecture, and that irrevocably means this interpretation is terrible.

Gotham in Batman Begins was very similar to how the city was interpreted in the 90s, and in the other films it's presented as a city, cleaner thanks to the crimefighting, many comics also show Gotham's architecture as being normal, back in the golden age (which is what The Dark Knight reminds me of) the city was standard

 

[Skrilla31]

The worst thing they could have done was try and use Nolan's blueprint for Superman. It might have worked fine for a standalone Batman series but if you're really trying to create a full fledged DC universe, then I think you kind of HAVE to take yourself a little less seriously. When you have aliens, sea kings, extra terrestrial guardians, caped crusaders, and greek goddesses roaming about... perhaps "grounded" isn't the best way to go. Have some fun for christ sakes. A lighter tone and some color thrown in isn't gonna hurt anybody.

There's simply no way that Superman and Batman can share the same "grounded" reality on screen. Realism as it pertains to Superman and his world isn't the same as the kind that pertains to Batman and his. The only way you're ever gonna find that middle ground is if you have fun with it and embrace the fantasy that's inherent in both characters.

 

[Lord]

Batman's film series can easily be "realistic" and set in the greater DC universe, before The Dark Knight Rises came out i allways thought Batman Begins and The Dark Knight could easily be the starting point for a continuing series that could connect with other heroes at a certain point.

Batman: Years One is leagues more realistic than Nolan's series, yet it works with the DCU, that's just how Batman works

 

[Skrilla31]

Batman's film series can easily be "realistic" and set in the greater DC universe, before The Dark Knight Rises came out i allways thought Batman Begins and The Dark Knight could easily be the starting point for a continuing series that could connect with other heroes at a certain point.

Come on man.

"Breaking News, sorry people of Gotham we know there's a crazy clown holding your city hostage right now but we just got word that there's a guy out there who can talk to FISH!!!!"

 

[Lord]

Come on man.

"Breaking News, sorry people of Gotham we know there's a crazy clown holding your city hostage right now but we just got word that there's a guy out there who can talk to FISH!!!!"

That already happens in the comics, it's just part of the DC universe, what do you want to make it less "realistic"? Have Joker with a ray gun?

Even in real life we get a wide variety of news, we hear about terrorismo at the same time gossip about what celebrities do happens

 

[StarLord]

Come on man.

"Breaking News, sorry people of Gotham we know there's a crazy clown holding your city hostage right now but we just got word that there's a guy out there who can talk to FISH!!!!"

 

[Skrilla31]

That already happens in the comics, it's just part of the DC universe, what do you want to make it less "realistic"? Have Joker with a ray gun?

Except these aren't comics, these are films. If you're gonna make a Batman movie with the intent to branch out into larger, living, breathing DC universe... then yea you're gonna have take things a little less seriously. You can't just go out of your way to give every single thing a real world explanation only have the next film in line bring in truth lassos and power rings.

 

[Lord]

Except these aren't comics, these are films. If you're gonna make a Batman movie with the intent to branch out into larger, living, breathing DC universe... then yea you're gonna have take things a little less seriously. You can't just go out of your way to give every single thing a real world explanation only have the next film in line bring in truth lassos and power rings.

Real world explanation? Watch it however you want to but Nolan's Batman movies didn't have such good real world explanation, they would just go throw complete science fiction territory.

Batman is Batman, Justice League is Justice League, same character, different franchise. Even the MCU contains Iron Man's world a little, it's a world where real terrorismo exists at the same time as Rocket Racoon.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

That already happens in the comics, it's just part of the DC universe, what do you want to make it less "realistic"? Have Joker with a ray gun?

Perma-white and you know it!

 

[Red Mask]

???

Green Lantern was quite comic booky. It also had crazy talking fish men, etc.

This film should have been directed at kids. Plain and simple. They could have gotten more money back.

 

[Powerman34]

By any reasonable standard, MAN OF STEEL was a financial success.

Splitting hairs on that seems pointless.

Amen! So a movie that makes 700 mil worldwide is considered a disappointment now? Breaking BO records left and right. With the GA going back for multiple views (I've seen three times) and a sequel being fast tracked as we speak, WHat do you all want?

 

[Shikamaru]

Amen! So a movie that makes 700 mil worldwide is considered a disappointment now? Breaking BO records left and right. With the GA going back for multiple views (I've seen three times) and a sequel being fast tracked as we speak, WHat do you all want?

WB considers it to be a dissapointment because it didn't make TDK/TDKR money. As in make at least $1 billion. Anyone who has a bit of common sense and some basic knowledge on how the industry works knows 100% there is no freakin' way MOS could have done much money. Much like every other CBM reboot, it carried the burden of being a reboot and being the first film after a bad film with the same character. All reboots had that because the new franchise first has to earn the trust of the audience. Batman Begins did not make $1 billion either. It is always the second film in a rebooted franchise that proves whether or not the first film and the reboot overall was a success and a good idea in the first place.

On top of carrying the reboot burden, MOS practically had zero marketing up until April 2013 (excluding the first two trailers), whereas TDK had a lot of viral marketing since very early on. It also only had about one or two free weeks before other big summer blockbusters came along and had to compete with it.

When you consider all that, the amount MOS made is completely realistic and if anything, it proves that Superman has potential on the big screen with today's audience.

The expectations WB had for MOS were absolutely ridiculous given the factors. They set such a high bar that even Batman wouldn't have reached had he been in the same shoes that Superman was in MOS, or would have at least had a bit of trouble reaching. They gave Superman a small toothbrush and asked him to clean the entire mansion with it in a limited amount of time. Then when Superman wasn't able to do it, they were confused as to why he didn't succeed (not the best analogy, but you get the point).

 

[Tacit Ronin]

His costume changes all the time, not the first time the movies change them


Gotham in Batman Begins was very similar to how the city was interpreted in the 90s, and in the other films it's presented as a city, cleaner thanks to the crimefighting, many comics also show Gotham's architecture as being normal, back in the golden age (which is what The Dark Knight reminds me of) the city was standard

Believe me I know. Gotham never had a set look. It would change with their rotating artist/writer. Which is why it irks me when people say Nolan's Batman is 'wrong'. Gotham in Batman YO looks even more ordinary than Nolan's and yet nobody ever complained about that.

 

[HighFivingMF]

I'm plenty excited about Guardians of the Galaxy, but I don't see the hubbub over Rocket Raccoon... He looks cool and all but he's probably going to be, at most, like the 5th most important character. All of these comments about "Yeah, Marvel has guts, they're making a movie about a raccoon with a machine gun! Your move DC!" It's as much about a raccoon with a machine gun as Dark Knight was about a plucky but objectively unfortunate looking assistant District Attorney juggling a love affair with her boss and her childhood friend.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

I don't think this is a MOS sequel...it's more like Avengers....follow ups to the characters.

Isn't that what a sequel is?

 

[roach]

Isn't that what a sequel is?

is Avengers a sequel to Iron Man?

 

[roach]

WB considers it to be a dissapointment because it didn't make TDK/TDKR money. As in make at least $1 billion. Anyone who has a bit of common sense and some basic knowledge on how the industry works knows 100% there is no freakin' way MOS could have done much money. Much like every other CBM reboot, it carried the burden of being a reboot and being the first film after a bad film with the same character. All reboots had that because the new franchise first has to earn the trust of the audience. Batman Begins did not make $1 billion either. It is always the second film in a rebooted franchise that proves whether or not the first film and the reboot overall was a success and a good idea in the first place.

On top of carrying the reboot burden, MOS practically had zero marketing up until April 2013 (excluding the first two trailers), whereas TDK had a lot of viral marketing since very early on. It also only had about one or two free weeks before other big summer blockbusters came along and had to compete with it.

When you consider all that, the amount MOS made is completely realistic and if anything, it proves that Superman has potential on the big screen with today's audience.

The expectations WB had for MOS were absolutely ridiculous given the factors. They set such a high bar that even Batman wouldn't have reached had he been in the same shoes that Superman was in MOS, or would have at least had a bit of trouble reaching. They gave Superman a small toothbrush and asked him to clean the entire mansion with it in a limited amount of time. Then when Superman wasn't able to do it, they were confused as to why he didn't succeed (not the best analogy, but you get the point).

I think you guys are putting way too much emphasis on Jeff Robinov's comment.
Why would a guy who was passed up for the studio chief job, was marginalized at the studio, iced out of key decisions, that the studio leaked stories about his bad behavior...why would that guy want to take a dump on that studio's big summer movie?

 

[Docker2.0]

DC just needs to get the rights to The X-Men and they'll be fine.

Crazy part is that if WB somehow got the rights to xmen tomorrow, I can see them putting out new films constantly like Batman, only because they saw what it did for Fox. And anyone who uses that excuse that WB has other properties to worry about than superhero movies, then you are kidding yourself. Sony was/is on the verge of bankruptcy but yet they churn out Spiderman movies like there is no tomorrow. Granted they have no choice because the rights would revert but they know what they have and are willing to take a chance. Same thing with Fox. As much as we bash them, they are willing to take a chance as well. WB has an entire universe of characters that they can chose from but it seems everything is Batman. He's had how many cartoons and movies alone in the past 20 years!?

 

[roach]

Crazy part is that if WB somehow got the rights to xmen tomorrow, I can see them putting out new films constantly like Batman, only because they saw what it did for Fox. And anyone who uses that excuse that WB has other properties to worry about than superhero movies, then you are kidding yourself. Sony was/is on the verge of bankruptcy but yet they churn out Spiderman movies like there is no tomorrow. Granted they have no choice because the rights would revert but they know what they have and are willing to take a chance. Same thing with Fox. As much as we bash them, they are willing to take a chance as well. WB has an entire universe of characters that they can chose from but it seems everything is Batman. He's had how many cartoons and movies alone in the past 20 years!?

Did I miss a Spider-man film? They put out one film and one is in production. That's not putting out films like there is no tomorrow? Marvel is putting out superhero films like there is no tomorrow.

However Batman is being used in the DCMU (DC Movie Universe) because he is a corner stone of that universe.