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

[Aztec]

About to respond to regwec.....why bother?

At any rate, I'm not sure how anyone could really bash the Ben Affleck move. He's a terrific actor, writer, and director. Apparently Snyder sold him on the script and the story before he signed on. I trust his tastes (post 2004) and I have little doubt he will do the role justice. If anything this was a "safety first" move by WB/DC. There's little risk hiring an A lister for a huge role.

I really feel that, despite the change in actor, this is a move toward a SOFT REBOOT of the Batman character. I've been saying it from day one. Many mocked me but let's look at the facts (per Snyder & company in recent interviews): 1) Batman's origin will not be covered, 2) Batman will be an older man, 3) Batman will be an experienced crimefighter. All of these signs point to WB/DC building off the Nolan trilogy; at least as a "backstory" for the character.

I'm NOT saying that they will directly reference the films (although they could) nor am I saying that they will be bound to the "rules" of that series. What I am saying is that they will simply "move forward" with the character in a way that will neither be predicated upon, nor contradict the Nolan films. This allows fans to include them in the continuity if they choose. This is the correct course of action IMHO. Why alienate fans now? Why completely reboot the character whose last film will only be 3 years prior to the new film? Answer: they won't. It will be a soft reboot. I'll stake my zero credibility as a speculator on it.

Now let's connect Arrow and The Flash series to the films thus brining in two more fully developed characters. Make a Wonder Woman film and Aquaman and viola: you have a Justice League film.

 

[shiva666]

The super hero genre at the movies is well cemented , you don't need to re-introduce the characters in every single movie (ASM shouldn't have done it)

 

[blalex620]

There is a report that Affleck has signed on for multiple films (JL possibly).

Also that now that Affleck is a part of this WB is trying to tap Matt Damon too possibly for Aquaman.

 

[blalex620]

The super hero genre at the movies is well cemented , you don't need to re-introduce the characters in every single movie (ASM shouldn't have done it)

In TASM's case it's better that they actually did reboot it completely. For one they were going with a completely different female character: Gwen instead of MJ. Two, they want to start him off in high school again and keep him in high school for at least 2 movies whereas the original Spider-Man moved him out of high school after 1. Third, they probably want to do a different and hopefully better take on Venom than was done. Also the last movie left a bad taste in everyone's mouth. It is to do a soft reboot or continuation after a successful franchise, much harder to do after the last film sucks horribly.

But I agree with above poster I think this will be a soft reboot instead of a full blown reboot. Since Batman will be the more seasoned hero of the two right off the bat (no pun intended) it's clear that they're allowing people to make the connection with Nolan's trilogy in terms of origin and maybe even a little of the mythos.

 

[danoyse]

I dunno. I am a happy DC fan, delighted that DC movies aren't targeted at the under sevens. If we can both be happy with our respective lots, then all is right with the world.

I can think of a few under sevens who can comment about movies with more maturity than anything in that post.

 

[regwec]

No, the post is immature in context- the content is fairly prosaic.

 

[blalex620]

Sooooo how about Damon for Aquaman......

 

[regwec]

Do you think Aquaman will ever happen? I would love to see a solo movie as a kind of John Carter underwater, but then, John Carter isn't exactly a by-word for startling financial success.

I think that Coster-Waldau fellow would probably be my first choice, anyway.

 

[blalex620]

Just saw Whedon gives his support for Affleck as Batman. Looking back I bet WB s*** their pants when they saw Whedon made Avengers as successful as it was seeing as he came to them and pitched movies for DC characters first. You know whoever thought Whedon was a bad idea years ago got fired the day WB found out Avengers made 1.5 bil.

Edit: Even if a solo Aquaman doesn't happen it's a good bet he'll still be in JL.

 

[dark_b]

just because Whedon's Avengers was good that doesnt mean that his WW would be good.

thats how Bryan Singer got 100% freedom on Superman in 2004.

 

[regwec]

Damn good point, although I would substitute "good" for "popular".

 

[Rocketman]

I'll pass on a Whedon Wonder Woman. If Buffy and the cheesy sarcasm is any sign of what it would've been, no thanks. It works for The Avengers because it's all light and a more family oriented ensemble where cartoon characters are interacting, and it's Disney and whatnot, but it doesn't work for DC.

Between DC and Marvel, DC is clearly more adult oriented, especially with a dark character like Batman, not to mention Watchmen, V For Vendetta, and everything through Vertigo.

Marvel is obviously not interested in doing anything with Punisher or Blade, and Wolverine is pretty much run into the ground. Ghost Rider and Daredevil have uncertain futures too. They don't have the rights to Spider-Man, and they have no rights to X-Men or Fantastic Four either. In all honesty, Marvel can't get it right either, more so than DC. At least DC owns their characters. X-Men and Spider-Man are the two biggest things in Marvel Comics, and Marvel Studios can't even make movies of them.

 

[Docker2.0]

I'll pass on a Whedon Wonder Woman. If Buffy and the cheesy sarcasm is any sign of what it would've been, no thanks. It works for The Avengers because it's all light and a more family oriented ensemble where cartoon characters are interacting, and it's Disney and whatnot, but it doesn't work for DC.

Between DC and Marvel, DC is clearly more adult oriented, especially with a dark character like Batman, not to mention Watchmen, V For Vendetta, and everything through Vertigo.

Marvel is obviously not interested in doing anything with Punisher or Blade, and Wolverine is pretty much run into the ground. Ghost Rider and Daredevil have uncertain futures too. They don't have the rights to Spider-Man, and they have no rights to X-Men or Fantastic Four either. In all honesty, Marvel can't get it right either, more so than DC. At least DC owns their characters. X-Men and Spider-Man are the two biggest things in Marvel Comics, and Marvel Studios can't even make movies of them.

So much fail in this post. You are right, Marvel does not have all their characters but the ones that they do have, they are getting it right. It's actually a good thing that Spiderman and Xmen are not owned by Marvel studios because if they were, they wouldn't make the movies because they can only release so many movies per year and with the other studios "helping" them out, they can release more, and make more money in the mean time. I don't see the point of trying to discredit Marvel by trying to nit pick their formula when it's clear WB is lost. And that's not bashing DC, it's just until they get their own studio and WB execs get a clue, they probably won't get it right. Even though I will be one of the first in line to see WF's,I'm not sold it will be good at all. They(WB)meddle way to much in DC movies for whatever reason.

 

[T"Challa]

I'll pass on a Whedon Wonder Woman. If Buffy and the cheesy sarcasm is any sign of what it would've been, no thanks. It works for The Avengers because it's all light and a more family oriented ensemble where cartoon characters are interacting, and it's Disney and whatnot, but it doesn't work for DC.

Between DC and Marvel, DC is clearly more adult oriented, especially with a dark character like Batman, not to mention Watchmen, V For Vendetta, and everything through Vertigo.

Marvel is obviously not interested in doing anything with Punisher or Blade, and Wolverine is pretty much run into the ground. Ghost Rider and Daredevil have uncertain futures too. They don't have the rights to Spider-Man, and they have no rights to X-Men or Fantastic Four either. In all honesty, Marvel can't get it right either, more so than DC. At least DC owns their characters. X-Men and Spider-Man are the two biggest things in Marvel Comics, and Marvel Studios can't even make movies of them.

You do realize that Marvel has created the 3rd most successful franchise in cinematic history right? (they will be #1 by the time Avengers 2 runs its course). And they've done this in under 5 years. To say Marvel 'cant get it right' is a little umm..erroneous.

And i love how you exclude Green Lanter, Jonah Hex, the Losers etc from the 'adult-oriented' catalog.

 

[regwec]

I think a big difference between some Marvel fans and those of us who don't particularly enjoy those movies, is the former's willingness to see profit for the studio as the primary reflection of "getting it right". Even on that basis, it is an erroneous comparison with WB, because WB has many other non-comicbook properties to exploit.

 

[T"Challa]

I think a big difference between some Marvel fans and those of us who don't particularly enjoy those movies, is the former's willingness to see profit for the studio as the primary reflection of "getting it right". Even on that basis, it is an erroneous comparison with WB, because WB has many other non-comicbook properties to exploit.

Because how else do you objectively measure a studios' success? 'enjoying the movies is completely reliant on opinion. Even so, every one of Marvel's movies has been critically successful. (all are rated fresh on RT and are above average to great on metacritic), yes even IM2. Audience ratings are great, and Cinemascores range from B+ to A's. I'm just stating the data available. Anyone is free to hate or dislike the MCU films but from what we have available to us in terms of numbers and statistics, to say they are not 'getting it right' as a movie studio is just wrong.

 

[DocHolliday]

just because Whedon's Avengers was good that doesnt mean that his WW would be good.

thats how Bryan Singer got 100% freedom on Superman in 2004.

I didn't even like his X-Men movies. Incredibly bland and dull. Doesn't help that Singer doesn't have much flair as a director. But the problems with Superman Returns go way beyond Singer. If he didn't end up screwing it up, Warner and Jon Peters eventually would have. They had hacks like McG and Ratner attached to direct a really awful script from JJ Abrahms for the longest time. Oh yeah, there was also the beyond terrible Superman/Batman project that Wolfgang Peterson began to prep in the early 2000s with Jude Law and Colin Farrel playing the heroes.

WB is hopeless as a comic movie studio. Anybody hoping for a cinematic DCU from WB should give up already. Relegating the Flash to a tv series says enough about how much they respect the characters. Sad thing is they might have managed to trust DC and their properties if Geoff Johns and Didio didn't screw up the Green Lantern flick. WB gave DC some leeway there and they dropped the ball bigtime. Being owned by one studio doesn't give much room for error though. One misstep and WB was back to calling the shots while Marvel's had numerous financial bombs and critical failures over the years(Hulk, Fantastic Four, Punisher, Ghost Rider, X3, Spiderman 3, Kick Ass 2...all really terrible) but were allowed to get away with it due to the fact that they were all spread across multiple studios.

 

[regwec]

Yeah, but that's the relevance of the second part of my post. WB is not particularly doing anything wrong; it just hasn't so far delivered a Marvel-esque exploitation of the DC universe. Some people may want that, while I really don't.

My view of whether a studio is "getting it right" is that of a consumer. I enjoy WB DC movies, on the whole, more than I do Marvel's. So, for me, the title of this thread makes a presumption that is faulty.

 

[Shikamaru]

"Getting it right" can be used in two entirely different context. The first context, the one T''Challa is talking about, refers to popularity and box office success. The second context, the one regwec is talking about, refers to whether or not Marvel did justice to the characters and films they made. The first context has an objective answer while the second context has a subjective answer. No one is denying for a second that Marvel Studios is the top dog right now in terms of financial success and popularity, but that doesn't mean everyone will agree as to whether or not Marvel did a good job. Everyone has their own opinions on that.

In terms of the second context, I am in between regwec and T''Challa on this one. For the most part, I really like what Marvel has done with their properties on film so far. But I disagree with everyone who makes it sound as if Marvel is this perfect studio that can do no wrong. That's not true. They have screwed up in the past in terms of the second context IMO. The mistakes they made are: turning most of their solo films into Avengers promos as opposed to making them great movies that can stand on their own, dumbing down certain aspects of certain stories/characters to make them more family friendly (i.e. watering down the Red Skull's fascism & racism), and not treating all their characters with the respect they deserve + adapting them poorly. The first two mistakes I brought up seemed to not have carried over to Phase 2, which tells me Marvel has learned from those mistakes and won't repeat them again. However, the third mistake I just brought up seems to have carried over to Phase 2 and to have gotten a lot worse than in Phase 1. While it was a problem in Phase 1, it was more of a minor problem. Now it has become a really major problem IMO. The reason I say this is due to the way Marvel treated the Mandarin and Hank Pym. Both characters very important to the Iron Man and Avengers mythos respectively that Marvel just threw aside and stripped them of all their important arcs/traits and turned into a joke. What Marvel did to them is the equivalent of what people say Fox/WB/Sony would do to them if those studios had the rights. It is their biggest screw-up so far IMO.

 

[DocHolliday]

You do realize that Marvel has created the 3rd most successful franchise in cinematic history right? (they will be #1 by the time Avengers 2 runs its course). And they've done this in under 5 years. To say Marvel 'cant get it right' is a little umm..erroneous.

And i love how you exclude Green Lanter, Jonah Hex, the Losers etc from the 'adult-oriented' catalog.

Adjusting for inflation puts Star Wars and Bond well ahead of the Avengers for the foreseeable future. After 2015, Star Wars will be #1. Here are the adjusted numbers for domestic totals for franchises:

$5,146,439,000 - Bond
$4,674,049,200 - Star Wars
$2,889,298,000 - Harry Potter
$2,718,387,300 - Batman
$2,224,719,600 - Avengers
$2,160,905,000 - Star Trek
$1,919,686,200 - Indiana Jones
$1,829,180,800 - LOTR
$1,748,968,600 - Shrek
$1,731,860,600 - Spiderman
$1,551,858,000 - Pirates of the Caribbean
$1,526,287,900 - Rocky
$1,505,148,200 - Superman
$1,434,426,400 - Twilight
$1,287,947,200 - X-Men
$1,192,507,300 - Transformers
$1,120,378,700 - Exorcist

 

[Steamteck]

I think a big difference between some Marvel fans and those of us who don't particularly enjoy those movies, is the former's willingness to see profit for the studio as the primary reflection of "getting it right". Even on that basis, it is an erroneous comparison with WB, because WB has many other non-comicbook properties to exploit.

actually I measure by the feeling I get to the core of my being that the characters feel right. I also got this feeling with MOS but IM3 crashed and burned by my standard of "got it right"

Now I don't care for the more recent versions but more the classic ones so the " got it right " may vary with what version I suppose but I feel there's a core to most characters and marvel very much has gotten it right in most cases for me.
That being said, I'm more of a DC fan and MOS looks like a great start and I'm quite excited for Batman and a shared universe. I'm sorry you're not.

 

[Skrilla31]

It's not about just making great movies but look at how big and how expansive the marvel film universe is. We've seen all these different characters and all these different worlds, and all these different time periods... they've created this HUGE world for us to visit over the course of several films and we really get to spend time with all these characters.

I know they're only 2 films in but the DC universe feels comparatively small. In fact if this next movie is take place predominantly on Superman's turf, presumably Metropolis... then screw small it's gonna feel CLAUSTROPHOBIC in comparison.

 

[roach]

It's not about just making great movies but look at how big and how expansive the marvel film universe is. We've seen all these different characters and all these different worlds, and all these different time periods... they've created this HUGE world for us to visit over the course of several films and we really get to spend time with all these characters.

I know they're only 2 films in but the DC universe feels comparatively small. In fact if this next movie is take place predominantly on Superman's turf, presumably Metropolis... then screw small it's gonna feel CLAUSTROPHOBIC in comparison.

probably won't since Detroit is taking over as the New Gotham

 

[dnno1]

Adjusting for inflation puts Star Wars and Bond well ahead of the Avengers for the foreseeable future. After 2015, Star Wars will be #1. Here are the adjusted numbers for domestic totals for franchises:

$5,146,439,000 - Bond
$4,674,049,200 - Star Wars
$2,889,298,000 - Harry Potter
$2,718,387,300 - Batman
$2,224,719,600 - Avengers
$2,160,905,000 - Star Trek
$1,919,686,200 - Indiana Jones
$1,829,180,800 - LOTR
$1,748,968,600 - Shrek
$1,731,860,600 - Spiderman
$1,551,858,000 - Pirates of the Caribbean
$1,526,287,900 - Rocky
$1,505,148,200 - Superman
$1,434,426,400 - Twilight
$1,287,947,200 - X-Men
$1,192,507,300 - Transformers
$1,120,378,700 - Exorcist

Some of these numbers are not right. The Harry Potter Franchise has made more than $7 billion.

 

[ChukNoris]

I think the reason DC can't get it right is because they tried/are trying to have a consecutive tone. Now, having a consecutive tone isn't necessarily a BAD thing, it's just DC chose a dark and gritty tone for all their movies. For Batman and Superman (to an extent) this is ok, but characters like Green Lantern (and Flash) this tone does not work AT ALL. I think DC needs to adopt a lighter tone, OR if they want to keep the realistic Batman tone, keep it, just don't use that dark and gritty tone in the lighter franchises.

Also they need to get off their butts and make some movies!!!