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

[regwec]

Robin appears to be catching them up.

 

[Red Mask]

Red 2 is a DC Comics film.

 

[Red Mask]

Warner Bros. believes they've got a workable franchise with J.K. Rowling. Guess they don't have to worry about DCE anymore.

http://variety.com/2013/film/news/j...gives-warner-bros-franchise-fever-1200609603/

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Well this quote is from Time Warner's CEO:

Then you have 12 to 14 pictures coming from Warner Bros. And I think the basis, foundation of those 12 to 14 pictures are going to be coming from DC Entertainment. We have Batman versus Superman coming out in ’15, but those are going to be in the coming months a lot of announcements regarding kind of the future movie, television, games and consumer product pieces that are going to be coming from DC. On top of that, today’s announcement that we made about J Rowling is incredibly important because it’s another piece of kind of a foundation of what we want to be able to build off of.

http://www.unleashthefanboy.com/movies/time-warner-dc-movie/71657

 

[ЯɘvlveR]

thank you. thank you. thank you.

 

[Loki882]

Wonder Woman movie, Wonder Woman movie, make a damn WW movie already. I wonder if they're going to greenlight GDT's JLD movie soon?

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I wonder how many of those 12 to 14 pictures are variations on Superman sequels, Batman sequels and Superman/Batman sequels.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Easily 1/3, keep in mind, you've also got to factor in "Dangerous Beasts and Where to Find Them", plus a potential sequel or two and if there could be any other franchises starting up before 2015. Best case scenario WB want 14 franchise pics out and 11 are DCE flicks, and over half of them are Superman's likely two sequels, a new Batman trilogy, a Justice League film (maybe three?) then go for other properties.

 

[dnno1]

The 12-14 pictures are going to start out with some DC pictures (which are the base of the 12-14 picture), but part of them will also be the J.K. Rowling scripted pictures based on the Harry Potter series. You will probably have 2 or 3 more Superman pictures, a new Batman franchise (more than likely another 3 there). Possibly a Flash film, and a Justice League picture, making for about 5-7 films. The other 7 would be from the J.K. Rowling book "Fantastic Beasts and Where to find Them".

 

[Loki882]

A Flash movie before WW, no just no.

 

[Saint]

Well this quote is from Time Warner's CEO:



http://www.unleashthefanboy.com/movies/time-warner-dc-movie/71657

I wish I could believe this comment mattered, but I just can't. I can't because someone from WB says this every year, or there's a rumour to this effect every year--and nothing ever happens. So what's wrong at Warner Bros. that prevents them from launching a single successful superhero franchise besides Batman and Superman, while Marvel launches property after property--such that they're so far ahead of DC, Rocket Raccoon will make it to the big screen before the Flash and many of the biggest, most recognized properties in comics?

Marvel had a major advantage in that when they started making movies, they were making them themselves. That's an advantage DC never had. Their corporate masters have always been calling the shots. Marvel may be owned by Disney now, but that only became the case after they proved their model was successful on their own terms.

That model is simple: making films that celebrate the material will lead to success.

This is where WB has always failed. They don't make media that revels in its subject matter, they make media that apologizes for it (for the sake of this discussion, The Dark Knight Trilogy is the exception to pretty much everything I say). Marvel understands it doesn't make sense to make a Captain America movie that doesn't look like Captain America. That doesn't grow the brand, that doesn't serve the IP, and it doesn't create the environment for a quality film if you're trying to apologize for the subject matter. They have a unified approach.

At WB, well, I think they see movie franchises and comic franchises and animation franchises as separate. Marvel obviously doesn't think that way. They try to send the same message in every media. To WB, it's like DC Comics is just an appendage. WB does whatever the hell it wants while DC tries to pump out some fuel for the next time WB wants to do whatever the hell it wants.

WB doesn't seem to like Superheroes, besides Batman and Superman. They get cold feet everytime they try to kickstart a superhero film (see the seventy eight directors to come on board and then quietly leave the Flash), and when rumours float around as to why these properties are languishing, the story is always that nobody seemed to know exactly how to handle the IP.

Wonder Woman is a great example. The people who've gone into that "production" and come out the other side have always talked about how nobody seemed to know how to make it work. Well, it's not rocket science. These properties have guidebooks on how they work, called comics. In many cases, they've already been successful in animated television and animated films. Contrary to popular belief, the gap to film and television is not immense.

At Marvel, when somebody says "Gee, how do we make Rocket Raccoon work on screen?" somebody else answers "I guess we'll do it the same way we've always done it." At WB--maybe because of the gulf between WB and DC, but I don't know--for some reason, that incredibly simple solution never seems to come up. They just scratch their heads. They're scared out of their minds that superheroes "don't work" somehow. The best example of this is in their TV ventures.

WB has been more successful than Marvel on TV (a trend that will end come SHIELD), but only because Marvel hasn't put anything out there, while DC has shoveled on whatever crap they could manage, regardless of quality. They see TV as less risky, and since they're terrified of the IP for some reason, TV is a safer bet.

In those TV programs (and I'm referring strictly to live action ventures), we see the heart of the problem. Because WB is afraid of Superheroes, because they want to apologize for Superheroes, they must reimagine superheroes. In the WB playbook, though, "reimagine" actually means "diminish."

Metamorpho isn't a hero, he's a company. Wally West, Jay Garrick, and Barry Allen aren't people--they're fake IDs carried by a conman. Darkseid isn't a living God, he's a smoke monster that possesses people. Vertigo isn't a supervillain, it's a street drug. Harley Quinn is an evil therapist and Wonder Woman is a CEO! There are damn CEOs everywhere.

These ideas don't grow your brand, they diminish and confuse it. And, contrary to WB's thinking, when people sit down to watch Superheroes, it's so they can watch Superheroes. They know what they are, they aren't afraid or confused by it. The fans don't help. IIt's always said that "The general audience won't accept this or that," and because the fans and the execs have chanted that mantra for so long, people actually believe it's true.

It was proven wrong in 2002. Spider-Man was thirteen years ago, and it's been proven wrong a dozen times over since them. Marvel has a goddamn space raccoon on the slate and people are still thinking like this. It's wrong. If you believe this, you are wrong, and I have all the evidence to prove it. I don't care if it's skintight costumes, underwear outside the pants, people made of clay, or freeze rays--if you think it can't work, you are wrong. The entire Marvel film catalogue (and their licensed films as well) proves it.

It's that typing of thinking that cripples projects at WB and informs the crappy TV shows they keep shoveling onto their crappy network.

The gulf in quality is such that, when Marvel said "Hey! We're making Guardians of the Galaxy!" my response was "Well, I've never read that, but I'll start, because I bet it'll be cool." They've created a level of trust. Meanwhile, when DC says "Hey Saint! We're putting the Flash, one of your absolute favourite characters, on TV!" my response is the feeling that I might vomit and an oppressive sense of dread.

I can't wait, though. I hope it gets a spinoff like they've planned. I can see it now: Barry's insignia, the lightning bolt, will be from his favourite brand of sneakers! His nemesis will be Leo Snart, the CEO of Cold Incorporated, an amoral technology firm! Mirror Master will be a serial-killing stage magician! Gorilla Grodd, much like Doomsday, will spend 99% of his screentime as a sexy twenty-something via image-inducing technology!

It's not a matter of whether or not they ruin it, it's just a matter of how. It's inevitable for as long as WB is embarrassed by their own IP.

Imagine if WB owned Pokemon and decided to make a live action series. Pokemon wouldn't be creatures; Pokemon would refer to a secret fight club where sexy twenty-somethings with weird hair would bare-knuckle box. The series would be called Kanto Streets, and the main character would be Jack Pika (pronounced like Pike-ah), a young up-and-coming fighter who has to balance his dream with his drama-filled life at Kanto High. He'd battle fighters like Blas and Char, and train under his mentor Brock at Boulder Gym. Don't forget his rad lightning bolt tattoo!

I'm going to throw up a little.

 

[Loki882]

The problem is that comics and film are two completely different mediums, what works for one may not work for the other. Even Marvel has made plenty of changes to the source material when they felt it necessary. I agree that WB has screwed the pooch on everything but Batman and Superman, and that their excuses are just that. However, arguing that you should "just follow the comics" is not necessarily true. WW isn't rocket science, I agree. The fact that they keep harping on how difficult she is to adapt makes me want to scream "Marvel made Thor, Marvel made The Avengers, Marvel is making GOTG, Marvel is making Ant Man, do you really expect me to believe that WW is harder to make than GOTG and Ant Man, bull."

 

[The Guard]

The whole "Rocket Racoon got made, WTH WB?" line of thinking is getting a little old. There's just not much logic to it as a comparison method.

First, a character getting a movie first means next to nothing in terms of quality or the public embracing said concept/character (Look no further than HOWARD THE DUCK and countless others). Second, Rocket Raccoon is not getting his own movie. He's a supporting player in an ensemble film. And he's a really absurd concept. He's a badass talking animal. Of course they're adapting him in a faithful manner. It's pretty much the only way that concept works.

Something like Wonder Woman, on the other hand, has enjoyed many interpretations over the years, can be interpreted in a number of legitimate and relevant ways, and is a blend of superhero lore and modern comic book mythology elements, as are many of DC's heroes. Part and parcel to this? Much of that mythology is seen as overtly cheesy (and much of it is, if we're being honest). Point being that, necessary or not, there remains a modern perception about what
makes a comic book adaption a good one, from fans and the general public alike. Think about it...even comic book fans whined about how "cheesy", over the top or silly GREEN LANTERN was in its basic concept, etc. Despite this being an aspect of the source material for decades.

I don't see WB making movies that "apologize" for the source material. They, in the case of Nolan's Batman film and MAN OF STEEL, have made movies that legitimize the superhero concepts in a larger social context. That's not apologizing for the source material, though, and much of what made those films work WAS in the source material, and has been for a long time...it's just a different way of celebrating it and adapting it.

 

[Saint]

The whole "Rocket Racoon got made, WTH WB?" line of thinking is getting a little old. There's just not much logic to it as a comparison method.

First, a character getting a movie first means next to nothing in terms of quality or the public embracing said concept/character (Look no further than HOWARD THE DUCK and countless others).

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.

And he's a really absurd concept. He's a badass talking animal. Of course they're adapting him in a faithful manner. It's pretty much the only way that concept works.

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.

I don't see WB making movies that "apologize" for the source material.

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!"

 

[Saint]

On an unrelated note, it's still a bit of a shame Super Max never got made. David Goyer is a little... not great sometimes, but that movie actually would have been a pretty good answer to kickstarting a shared universe.

The rumours always says WB wants Justice League first, solo films later--which I think is a little problematic in that you're limiting the creators who then have to pick up the solo films and run with them. You're locking yourself in, at least as far as you want to maintain consistency.

A Super Max film would have been interesting in that it provides all the set up with none of the limitation. If you want to get the Flash into the audience's head, you put Captain Cold in the Rogues in there and have some Flash legends float around the prison. Same goes for any hero you think has potential.

That way you show there's a universe out there, create curiosity, but you haven't married yourself to an actor or interpretation--it's still open for someone to pick up a solo film and do their own thing.

 

[Loki882]

The whole "Rocket Racoon got made, WTH WB?" line of thinking is getting a little old. There's just not much logic to it as a comparison method.

First, a character getting a movie first means next to nothing in terms of quality or the public embracing said concept/character (Look no further than HOWARD THE DUCK and countless others). Second, Rocket Raccoon is not getting his own movie. He's a supporting player in an ensemble film. And he's a really absurd concept. He's a badass talking animal. Of course they're adapting him in a faithful manner. It's pretty much the only way that concept works.

Something like Wonder Woman, on the other hand, has enjoyed many interpretations over the years, can be interpreted in a number of legitimate and relevant ways, and is a blend of superhero lore and modern comic book mythology elements, as are many of DC's heroes. Part and parcel to this? Much of that mythology is seen as overtly cheesy (and much of it is, if we're being honest). Point being that, necessary or not, there remains a modern perception about what
makes a comic book adaption a good one, from fans and the general public alike. Think about it...even comic book fans whined about how "cheesy", over the top or silly GREEN LANTERN was in its basic concept, etc. Despite this being an aspect of the source material for decades.

I don't see WB making movies that "apologize" for the source material. They, in the case of Nolan's Batman film and MAN OF STEEL, have made movies that legitimize the superhero concepts in a larger social context. That's not apologizing for the source material, though, and much of what made those films work WAS in the source material, and has been for a long time...it's just a different way of celebrating it and adapting it.

No, fans and audience members complained about GL because they didn't do ENOUGH of the over the top stuff. I constantly heard things like "Sinestro and the GLC barely appear and don't do anything" or "they spent too much time on Earth and not enough time in space or on Oa" or "the constructs were really bland and uninteresting." So, fans/viewers *****ed about there not being ENOUGH of the source material. WW's mythology is no more complicated or cheesy than Thor, yet Marvel made that work, so that excuse goes right out the window.

 

[Red Mask]

If WB does go the origin route for Wonder Woman they should just keep the Olympians in the down low as much as possible. Or else Percy Jackson fans will start saying how they got Nathan Fillion, Stanley Tucci, Sean Bean, and everybody else that WB wishes they could have gotten.

The Rocket Raccoon complaint is getting stale. I'm looking forward to seeing Chris Pratt play Peter Quill a.k.a Star Lord. He'll be like Jack Burton in "Big Trouble in Little China".

Peter Quill: What's happening, Rocket?

Peter Quill: Who? Say that again?

Peter Quill: Where are we? What's happening, Rocket?

Peter Quill: English! Does anybody here speak English?

Peter Quill: What was that? What the hell is going on?

Peter Quill: Is that for real?

Peter Quill: Where the hell am I?

Peter Quill: God, I hope you're a woman!

Peter Quill: There are no buttons on this ship!

 

[dnno1]

The whole "Rocket Racoon got made, WTH WB?" line of thinking is getting a little old. There's just not much logic to it as a comparison method.

First, a character getting a movie first means next to nothing in terms of quality or the public embracing said concept/character (Look no further than HOWARD THE DUCK and countless others). Second, Rocket Raccoon is not getting his own movie. He's a supporting player in an ensemble film. And he's a really absurd concept. He's a badass talking animal. Of course they're adapting him in a faithful manner. It's pretty much the only way that concept works.

Something like Wonder Woman, on the other hand, has enjoyed many interpretations over the years, can be interpreted in a number of legitimate and relevant ways, and is a blend of superhero lore and modern comic book mythology elements, as are many of DC's heroes. Part and parcel to this? Much of that mythology is seen as overtly cheesy (and much of it is, if we're being honest). Point being that, necessary or not, there remains a modern perception about what
makes a comic book adaption a good one, from fans and the general public alike. Think about it...even comic book fans whined about how "cheesy", over the top or silly GREEN LANTERN was in its basic concept, etc. Despite this being an aspect of the source material for decades.

I don't see WB making movies that "apologize" for the source material. They, in the case of Nolan's Batman film and MAN OF STEEL, have made movies that legitimize the superhero concepts in a larger social context. That's not apologizing for the source material, though, and much of what made those films work WAS in the source material, and has been for a long time...it's just a different way of celebrating it and adapting it.

It is yet to be seen if Guardians of the Galaxy will be a hit or not (although it is true that the success of films like Iron Man, Spider-Man, and X-Men did help get GoTG green lit). I myself don't think the film will have any legs unless there is an appearance made my a character from another successful marvel franchise (like Iron Man) in the film.

 

[Red Mask]

Doesn't matter if GotG is a hit or not. The fact is that Marvel is making braver decisions on what titles to produce. Warner Bros. is just happy they've got more Harry Potter stuff to work with.

 

[Steamteck]

The problem is that comics and film are two completely different mediums, what works for one may not work for the other. Even Marvel has made plenty of changes to the source material when they felt it necessary. I agree that WB has screwed the pooch on everything but Batman and Superman, and that their excuses are just that. However, arguing that you should "just follow the comics" is not necessarily true. WW isn't rocket science, I agree. The fact that they keep harping on how difficult she is to adapt makes me want to scream "Marvel made Thor, Marvel made The Avengers, Marvel is making GOTG, Marvel is making Ant Man, do you really expect me to believe that WW is harder to make than GOTG and Ant Man, bull."

Actually it is true. not ever little obsessive detail but the soul and spirit of the characters and to feel when you see the character on the screen it is the character not some watered down knock off. Just have confidence and pride your IP and you're 90% there.

 

[Mr.M]

Little skeptical of Harry Potter spinoffs at this point. The phenomenon is over. The core fans have all grown up. Younger generations may keep revisiting those novels, but it's not like that series will be stressed in the educational curriculum going forward. I am not sure how a spinoff grows the brand, unless they are targeting older audiences to keep those fans in the fold. As another childhood series, I don't see it having nearly the same impact globally.

And I kind of rolled my eyes when Kevin Tsujihara mentions 12-14 pics, predominantly from DC Entertainment. Is he incorporating animated features? Over the course of how many years? I don't know what he's talking about; it sounds pretty vague. Right now they have BvS and maybe some Supes sequels, but I doubt they are even looking that far ahead.

 

[dnno1]

The whole "Rocket Racoon got made, WTH WB?" line of thinking is getting a little old. There's just not much logic to it as a comparison method.

First, a character getting a movie first means next to nothing in terms of quality or the public embracing said concept/character (Look no further than HOWARD THE DUCK and countless others). Second, Rocket Raccoon is not getting his own movie. He's a supporting player in an ensemble film. And he's a really absurd concept. He's a badass talking animal. Of course they're adapting him in a faithful manner. It's pretty much the only way that concept works.

Something like Wonder Woman, on the other hand, has enjoyed many interpretations over the years, can be interpreted in a number of legitimate and relevant ways, and is a blend of superhero lore and modern comic book mythology elements, as are many of DC's heroes. Part and parcel to this? Much of that mythology is seen as overtly cheesy (and much of it is, if we're being honest). Point being that, necessary or not, there remains a modern perception about what
makes a comic book adaption a good one, from fans and the general public alike. Think about it...even comic book fans whined about how "cheesy", over the top or silly GREEN LANTERN was in its basic concept, etc. Despite this being an aspect of the source material for decades.

I don't see WB making movies that "apologize" for the source material. They, in the case of Nolan's Batman film and MAN OF STEEL, have made movies that legitimize the superhero concepts in a larger social context. That's not apologizing for the source material, though, and much of what made those films work WAS in the source material, and has been for a long time...it's just a different way of celebrating it and adapting it.

What's sad is that they didn't use C'hp in Green Lantern because the director didn't like the character.

Doesn't matter if GotG is a hit or not. The fact is that Marvel is making braver decisions on what titles to produce. Warner Bros. is just happy they've got more Harry Potter stuff to work with.

Marvel just has a different vision and mission. They want to exploit all of their 5000 characters in their library. DC only boasts 7 (heroes), but the WB is only interested in what sells (Batman and Superman).

Little skeptical of Harry Potter spinoffs at this point. The phenomenon is over. The core fans have all grown up. Younger generations may keep revisiting those novels, but it's not like that series will be stressed in the educational curriculum going forward. I am not sure how a spinoff grows the brand, unless they are targeting older audiences to keep those fans in the fold. As another childhood series, I don't see it having nearly the same impact globally.

And I kind of rolled my eyes when Kevin Tsujihara mentions 12-14 pics, predominantly from DC Entertainment. Is he incorporating animated features? Over the course of how many years? I don't know what he's talking about; it sounds pretty vague. Right now they have BvS and maybe some Supes sequels, but I doubt they are even looking that far ahead.

It's not so much Harry Potter but J.K. Rowing. The ghost writer made a name for her self through the Harry Potter books and films and now the WB is trying to exploit that fame in an attempt to start another film franchise.

 

[Mr.M]

Well I don't think her name will have that kind of drawing power at the box office. Harry Potter was never marketed as, "From the epic young adult series from author J.K Rowling..." except maybe the first movie. It's just going to be difficult for any author to recapture that success in another series. What authors are known for two major series like that? Her name is just not going to draw. The concept has to sell itself or else. Plus, with the failures of Narnia and Percy Jackson, I am skeptical that these young adult adventure/fantasy movies will ever really catch on. I don't know what the formula is to make it work. Much like I don't know what the formula should be to make a DCCU work.

 

[dnno1]

Well I don't think her name will have that kind of drawing power at the box office. Harry Potter was never marketed as, "From the epic young adult series from author J.K Rowling..." except maybe the first movie. It's just going to be difficult for any author to recapture that success in another series. What authors are known for two major series like that? Her name is just not going to draw. The concept has to sell itself or else. Plus, with the failures of Narnia and Percy Jackson, I am skeptical that these young adult adventure/fantasy movies will ever really catch on. I don't know what the formula is to make it work. Much like I don't know what the formula should be to make a DCCU work.

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?

 

[Vid Electricz]

I can't wait, though. I hope it gets a spinoff like they've planned. I can see it now: Barry's insignia, the lightning bolt, will be from his favourite brand of sneakers! His nemesis will be Leo Snart, the CEO of Cold Incorporated, an amoral technology firm! Mirror Master will be a serial-killing stage magician! Gorilla Grodd, much like Doomsday, will spend 99% of his screentime as a sexy twenty-something via image-inducing technology!

It's not a matter of whether or not they ruin it, it's just a matter of how. It's inevitable for as long as WB is embarrassed by their own IP.

Imagine if WB owned Pokemon and decided to make a live action series. Pokemon wouldn't be creatures; Pokemon would refer to a secret fight club where sexy twenty-somethings with weird hair would bare-knuckle box. The series would be called Kanto Streets, and the main character would be Jack Pika (pronounced like Pike-ah), a young up-and-coming fighter who has to balance his dream with his drama-filled life at Kanto High. He'd battle fighters like Blas and Char, and train under his mentor Brock at Boulder Gym. Don't forget his rad lightning bolt tattoo!

I'm going to throw up a little.

This is all eerily accurate. Don't give them any ideas.