Why Can't DC Get it right? - Part 2

The second problem is that Warner Bros. is too worried about critical consensus. The reaction from fans and the general audience has largely been favorable, in terms of reviews and revenue. Although no DCEU film has outgrossed an Avengers film, every DCEU film thus far has managed to outgross the bulk of Marvel's movies. Rather than take that fact in stride, and push forward, Warner Bros. opts to remain disappointed that their films habe yet to earn $1 billion (as if anything less than that figure is somehow unprofitable). While Warner Bros. is busy fretting over what the critics have to say, Universal churns out a "Bayformers" movie every couple of years and laughs all the way to the bank as critics moan about the "tragedy of it all." Warner Bros. needs to simply make the films that they set out to make instead of reacting to every bit of unfavorable press. Warner Bros. takes ever negative comment as the gospel, making them quick to reshoot, rewrite, or scrap film ideas to appease people thst aren't necessarily seeking to be pleased.

A dropoff of 69 percent in its second weekend for Batman v Superman says otherwise. Paramount releases the Transformers movies, not universal. Also, the last movie was the lowest-grossing one in the franchise yet domestically.
 
The greatest issues facing the DC Comics movies are three-fold.

Warner Bros. Executives

The first problem is not unique to the DC Comics movies. Many movies have suffered because of the interference of studio-executives, such as The Amazing Spider-Man 2, F4ntastic, and X-Men Origins. Many studio executives are older, making them risk-adverse, and closed-off to content that is unfamiliar to them. Worse yet, many of these studio executives are obsequious in their pandering to shareholders. If a project doesn't seem like it will have mass appeal, or some easily marketable angle, then it will be hell to get said project greenlit, and even more hellish to keep the initial vision intact. It is public knowledge that the DCEU has suffered heavily from studio-intereference, especially when it comes to Batman v Superman, and Suicide Squad. If Warner Bros. executives don't learn to keep their distance, then we can expect future DCEU films to struggle to convey the intended vision as have BvM, and Suicide Squad.

A Lack of Confidence in Their Own Vision

The second problem is that Warner Bros. is too worried about critical consensus. The reaction from fans and the general audience has largely been favorable, in terms of reviews and revenue. Although no DCEU film has outgrossed an Avengers film, every DCEU film thus far has managed to outgross the bulk of Marvel's movies. Rather than take that fact in stride, and push forward, Warner Bros. opts to remain disappointed that their films habe yet to earn $1 billion (as if anything less than that figure is somehow unprofitable). While Warner Bros. is busy fretting over what the critics have to say, Universal churns out a "Bayformers" movie every couple of years and laughs all the way to the bank as critics moan about the "tragedy of it all." Warner Bros. needs to simply make the films that they set out to make instead of reacting to every bit of unfavorable press. Warner Bros. takes ever negative comment as the gospel, making them quick to reshoot, rewrite, or scrap film ideas to appease people thst aren't necessarily seeking to be pleased.


Thinking that a DCEU is Necessary to Begin With

Even though Marvel gets most of the shine, the fact of the matter is that Warner Bros. has been putting out superhero and comicbook films for the past 38 years. While there have been a few duds, most of their films have done pretty well in terms of box office revenue (Superman, Batman, Constantine, V for Vendetta, A History of Violence, Red, 300, The Dark Knight trilogy). DC could have simply made an excellent trilogy out of Man of Steel and moved on to something else (such as rebooting Green Lantern).

There was never any real need for Warner Bros. to make a shared cinematic universe as much as there was a need for them to simply put out a greater number of comicbook films that didn't involve Batman or Superman, and do so on a more frequent basis. And rather than worry about whether or not their films are grossing $1 billion, they should have simply focused on the profitability of the project. V for Vendetta didn't even gross $200 million, but was still a success (it earned $132 million against a budget of $54 million).

Hellboy, Kick-Ass, and many other films have proven that there is plenty of money to go around in the genre without having to copy or compete directly with Marvel. Warner Bros. has the distinct advantage of having the rights to all of the DC Comics characters. Warner Bros. should be plying that advantage to put out more diverse content than Marvel.

All of this.

To summarize, the DCEU is trying to top Marvel in one step. There are a lot of things that go into that, but its pretty ridiculous, and it's a goal that just gets more and more impossible. It will be interesting to see what happens with Justice League. It may not quite make it to a billion. I wonder if Warner Brothers will just wash their hands of the whole thing, leading to higher quality mid-tier movies going forward?
 
If you think the MCU is campy then no, you don't understand what camp is.

I didn't say one thing about the MCU in my post. I was replying to your assertion that there are people in this thread who don't know what camp is, which I believe was a knee-jerk reaction to one's remark about "going Marvel campy." But if you try and tell me there's none in the Iron Man, Thor and Ant-Man movies, you're also wrong.

The latter has plenty of humor because they realized in the 11th hour that their approach thus far hasn't been working as well as they would like, lending further credence to my argument.

I never expected Suicide Squad to not have humor. Look at the characters.
 
I never expected Suicide Squad to not have humor. Look at the characters.

Can't really say look at the characters when it comes to the DCCU. You have a Batman who kills and a Superman who constantly looks like someone burned his morning toast and did I mention that Superman kills as well?
 
I didn't say one thing about the MCU in my post. I was replying to your assertion that there are people in this thread who don't know what camp is, which I believe was a knee-jerk reaction to one's remark about "going Marvel campy." But if you try and tell me there's none in the Iron Man, Thor and Ant-Man movies, you're also wrong.

You defended those who used the word "campy" to describe Marvel's tone, saying that they do in fact understand what that word means.

"Campy" does not describe Marvel's approach. Light-hearted, fun movies do not equal camp. Again, you do not know what that word means.

I never expected Suicide Squad to not have humor. Look at the characters.

I don't even know what you're trying to argue.

Look at the first teaser:

[YT]PLLQK9la6Go[/YT]

Clearly they figured out that their "grimdark" approach to the DC stable was the wrong way to go about it, so they underwent extensive reshoots to fix the film.
 
Ironically Suicide Squad warranted a grimdark tone much more than effin' Superman.
 
I still haven't actually seen Suicide Squad, so maybe it is like this, but I was hoping for something that was sort of Tarantino-esque. Dark and violent, but funny and over the top at the same time. Inglourious Basterds with supervillains.
 
To sum up Suicide Squad. It's a poor mans attempt at GotG. They even play Spirit in the sky. I was like come on.
 
Last edited:
I still haven't actually seen Suicide Squad, so maybe it is like this, but I was hoping for something that was sort of Tarantino-esque. Dark and violent, but funny and over the top at the same time. Inglourious Basterds with supervillains.

You can tell something changed from trailer 1 to trailers 2/3

The actual tone is some weird in between.
 
I still haven't actually seen Suicide Squad, so maybe it is like this, but I was hoping for something that was sort of Tarantino-esque. Dark and violent, but funny and over the top at the same time. Inglourious Basterds with supervillains.

You're not missing much.
 
Can't really say look at the characters when it comes to the DCCU. You have a Batman who kills and a Superman who constantly looks like someone burned his morning toast and did I mention that Superman kills as well?

Please leave the goalposts as they are. Superman is not in Suicide Squad. Batman's rescue of Harley results in a genuinely funny and very unexpected moment.

You defended those who used the word "campy" to describe Marvel's tone, saying that they do in fact understand what that word means.

"Campy" does not describe Marvel's approach. Light-hearted, fun movies do not equal camp. Again, you do not know what that word means.

I'm beginning to think you don't know what it means. If people can agree that Superman II is a campy film compared to Superman, and you can't admit that Ant-Man is rather campy in its aesthetic, then maybe you should stop telling people they don't know what they're talking about. :cwink:

Look at the first teaser:

And it was a great first teaser. Teasers barely show you anything. They're called teasers. They're not supposed to give away anything major. You can't tell me you never expected banter in a film with a cast that large, especially with Will Smith and Margot Robbie. If you expected only stoicism, you misled yourself.
 
I'm beginning to think you don't know what it means. If people can agree that Superman II is a campy film compared to Superman, and you can't admit that Ant-Man is rather campy in its aesthetic, then maybe you should stop telling people they don't know what they're talking about. :cwink:

Superman II has nothing to do with this discussion. Provide me with a reasonable argument using the contents of the MCU films to justify how their approach can reasonably be described as "campy". Until you can, I will continue telling you that you don't understand what camp is.

For the record, campiness is defined as "intentionally exaggerated thematic or genre elements, especially in television and motion picture mediums. 'Camp' style willfully over-emphasizes certain elements of the genre or theme, creating an almost self-satirical milieu."

And it was a great first teaser. Teasers barely show you anything. They're called teasers. They're not supposed to give away anything major. You can't tell me you never expected banter in a film with a cast that large, especially with Will Smith and Margot Robbie. If you expected only stoicism, you misled yourself.

Again, what are you even trying to argue? All I've said is that Suicide Squad's tone was altered rather drastically with extensive reshoots by WB in an effort to pull away from the "grimdark" aesthetic that backfired previously. This is fact. We know this to be true. It's apparent in the marketing, as well as behind the scenes report about the disquiet at WB. What's the disagreement?
 
Please leave the goalposts as they are. Superman is not in Suicide Squad. Batman's rescue of Harley results in a genuinely funny and very unexpected moment.

Superman is in the DCCU in which this thread speaks about. SS could have made a billion, like BvS could have, had the tones been right. SS had the Joker, who's up there with Batman and Superman but yet DC/WB darn neared deceived the public into thinking he's in the movie more than he was, even ticking off Leto. That Joker was also suppose to be "dark" because he has tats everywhere, even though I don't believe that he never has in any incarnation of the character. They are throwing ish to the wall and hoping it sticks. Harley Quinn is a very popular character but how TF can she have a spin off? She doesn't have any villains, no powers, or really any combat skills. She's just a crazy chick who's popular for being in love with the Joker and is hot. I actually think Booster Gold would make a better movie than her's would but we will see.
 
Why does he need everyone's love and appreciation to be Superman?

Because if he's not inspiring other people to be better and do better, he's not Superman. And if the public hates and resents him, than he sure as hell isn't inspiring them.
 
Suicide squad also got it right enough to beat iron man. At least the fans have spoken.
 
Superman is in the DCCU in which this thread speaks about. SS could have made a billion, like BvS could have, had the tones been right. .

Or SS could have been another Fantastic Four. Obviously WB got something right to have made $732 million worldwide. And that's without opening in China. Plus being number 13 of comic book adaptations. Who seriously thought a movie about a bunch of obscure villains would make $1 billion?


SS had the Joker, who's up there with Batman and Superman but yet DC/WB darn neared deceived the public into thinking he's in the movie more than he was, even ticking off Leto. .
Since when was Joker right up there with Batman and Superman? He doesn't even have his own comic book series right now. The last Joker comic book series was back in the 1970s and only ran nine issues before it was cancelled. Harley Quinn is a bigger star than Joker. And Harley Quinn was the big draw for this movie.


.
Harley Quinn is a very popular character but how TF can she have a spin off? .
You answered you own question. She is a very popular character now. Even more popular than Wonder Woman and Catwoman.

.
She doesn't have any villains, no powers, or really any combat skills. She's just a crazy chick who's popular for being in love with the Joker and is hot. I actually think Booster Gold would make a better movie than her's would but we will see.
Seven words: Gotham City Sirens and Birds of Prey.
Put that in a movie, give it a good director, a decent budget but without going crazy, and a decent story and its a sure hit.
 
Yeah, how you like them apples nine year old movie?

:lmao:

Suicide Squad is weird in that it is simultaneously the worst film in the DCEU thus far, while also being the most entertaining.
 
:lmao:

Suicide Squad is weird in that it is simultaneously the worst film in the DCEU thus far, while also being the most entertaining.

Characters that are funny, fun to watch, and have personalities will overcome a multitude of sins. That's why Marvel films do so well. That's why the first batch of Star Wars films went over better than the next three.
 
Or SS could have been another Fantastic Four. Obviously WB got something right to have made $732 million worldwide. And that's without opening in China. Plus being number 13 of comic book adaptations. Who seriously thought a movie about a bunch of obscure villains would make $1 billion?

It got something 'right' like the likes of Bay's Transformers movies got something right. Bad or mediocre movies making big money is nothing new in cinema. A movie that heavily markets the Joker, Will Smith, and Margot Robbie is always going to get attention.

Since when was Joker right up there with Batman and Superman? He doesn't even have his own comic book series right now. The last Joker comic book series was back in the 1970s and only ran nine issues before it was cancelled. Harley Quinn is a bigger star than Joker. And Harley Quinn was the big draw for this movie.

Having your own comic book series means jack to the general public. The Joker has been a box office draw since 1989 with Burton's Batman. The character is a cultural icon in cinema. Harley is not. It's not even debatable that Joker is a bigger star than Harley to the public.

Heck Ledger's Joker alone dwarfs Harley in the popularity and iconic stakes.
 
Last edited:
i'm pretty sure they will go for Gotham City Sirens type movie instead of Harley solo.
 
Because if he's not inspiring other people to be better and do better, he's not Superman. And if the public hates and resents him, than he sure as hell isn't inspiring them.

So you're saying we didn't see Superman in the movie? ;)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"