Why Can't DC Get it right?

[akfj]

It depends on what you consider "half-assed". I don't think that something like The Dark Knight should be the benchmark for these types of movies. Iron Man or Spider-Man should be what a superhero movie should aim for, in tone, entertainment value and quality.

It depends on if that tone fits the hero in question. Having a high-quality film is the most important, but a high-quality film can be done in many different ways, which can be said of the three films that you mention.

 

[Crook]

It depends on what you consider "half-assed". I don't think that something like The Dark Knight should be the benchmark for these types of movies. Iron Man or Spider-Man should be what a superhero movie should aim for, in tone, entertainment value and quality.

In terms of sheer production value and treatment of the source material, TDK is right up there. Not to say that IM and SM are too far behind, either. Even movies that I've hated such as SM3 and SR have notable credits in some form. Moreso technical than anything else.

I was referring to the B&R, Jonah Hex, Elektra, Ghost Rider, F4-type films. C-list quality on practically every level of production. THAT is pathetic and a slap in the face to the industry.

 

[Heretic]

It depends on what you consider "half-assed". I don't think that something like The Dark Knight should be the benchmark for these types of movies. Iron Man or Spider-Man should be what a superhero movie should aim for, in tone, entertainment value and quality.

That's ridiculous.

No one style is perfect for every character. You're telling me a Deathblow movie should be like Spider-Man or Iron Man?

Of course not...each movie should have a style best suited for that movie.

 

[Tony Stark]

In terms of sheer production value and treatment of the source material, TDK is right up there. Not to say that IM and SM are too far behind, either. Even movies that I've hated such as SM3 and SR have notable credits in some form. Moreso technical than anything else.

I was referring to the B&R, Jonah Hex, Elektra, Ghost Rider, F4-type films. C-list quality on practically every level of production. THAT is pathetic and a slap in the face to the industry.

OK let me just step in a sec here, to me there's a HUGE difference between Batman and Robin and a movie like Fantastic Four. You do realize ILM did the effects for both F4 movies, and for Ghost Rider?

I'm just making sure becuase you talk about notible technical credits for Spider-man 3 and Superman Returns.

Batman and Robin and Jonah Hex were jokes. They made no attempt to make any kind of a serious movie what-so-ever.

 

[Crook]

I wasn't really referring to sfx, per se. For all intents and purposes, they're hired guns. Doesn't take as much effort on the behalf of the director and studio. To take your example, B&Rs effects were done by Rhythm & Hues, the same company that did X2/X3. It was also supervised by John Dykstra, the same man that won an Oscar for his work on the first 2 Spidey films.

You'll notice the discrepancy here. That's purely because for the most part sfx houses work outside the bounds of the actual film.

 

[ALP]

Do not be naive people.

The reason we haven't seen many superhero films from DC is not because they are just so greatly concerned with production, they're just afraid of losing money.

You know why we haven't had a Flash film in the past several years, or a Wonder Woman, or a Green Lantern? Because Warner Brothers did not need to gamble hundreds of millions on potential flops when they had guaranteed billion-dollar franchises like Harry Potter and Batman. Now that Potter and Batman will both be gone in the next two years, they now look for other options.

 

[Docker2.0]

Wow! 3 pages in less than 24 hours. This thread has been pretty active. I think some people are really missing the point. Noone is dissing DC. It's just that as comic fans, we want to see super heroes on the screen. Whether people want to admit it or not, Marvel is beating DC in that field. Marvel is doing all they can to get their characters exposed in a major way. It's amazing how people know more about Blade(a 4th tier character)moreso than they know about Wonder Woman when it comes to movies and exposure. WW hasn't been seen in anything live since the 70's. That says a lot!

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

No one should give out gold stars and say "Hey, BOTH those FF films sucked, but at least you put em out!" What good does that do? Now I have two FF i have no desire to watch or buy on DVD.

Again, neither companies do anything "Right" in the grand scheme of things. They just make different kinds of mistakes from the other.

Agreed. Both have their positives and negatives.

 

[jmc]

It depends on what you consider ''half-assed''. I don't think that something like The Dark Knight should be the benchmark for these types of movies. Iron Man or Spider-Man should be what a superhero movie should aim for, in tone, entertainment value and quality.

But superhero genre has to evolve, it can't stay with the same tried and true formula, otherwise you're just making the same type of movie with different costumed characters, and eventually people will get sick of it. TDK should be the benchmark because it shows you can do more and go deeper into a superhero film and still keep it entertaining to the masses. Seriously if Marvel had the balls they would have delved into Tony Stark's alcoholism like in the comic for IM2, that would have been uncharted territory for a superhero flick and could potentially have made it all the more interesting. They 'touched' on it, but instead they played it safe and all we got was a run of the mill superhero film.

 

[GL's Light]

Agreed. It IS a very small part of marketing. TDK went the viral method as well, like Cloverfield before it and it worked out well... but it's undoubtedly a mistake to not bring SOME forward sizzle at an event like this which so clearly hones in on your target demographic.

My point was I can't believe that people who are DC fans wouldn't be willing to accept this and acknowledge that DC can improve in that regard.

Again, though, it's a question of blowing things out of proportion. I agree that WB/DCE should do more for forward promotion, but the reaction to there being no new announcements at Comic-Con in terms of live action films has been overblown.

Also, some people are talking as if there's been no improvement in the output of DC films from Warners, where in fact Watchmen and Green Lantern constitute a huge step in the right direction in terms of bringing superheros other than Superman and Batman to the screen. Saying it's not enough or they should have done it sooner smacks of the kind of overly negative attitude that we see too much of on the internet.

 

[jmc]

Again, though, it's a question of blowing things out of proportion. I agree that WB/DCE should do more for forward promotion, but the reaction to there being no new announcements at Comic-Con in terms of live action films has been overblown.

Also, some people are talking as if there's been no improvement in the output of DC films from Warners, where in fact Watchmen and Green Lantern constitute a huge step in the right direction in terms of bringing superheros other than Superman and Batman to the screen. Saying it's not enough or they should have done it sooner smacks of the kind of overly negative attitude that we see too much of on the internet.

Yeah seriously, what exactly did people want from WB at Comic Con? We got a GL preview, and we already know we are getting Batman 3 in 2012 and Superman reboot either 2012 or 13 from Team Nolan, what exactly were people expecting? A slew of announcements for Flash, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and a dozen other characters? That was never gonna happen. Anyone crying over what Marvel did needs to step back for a moment and think, what exactly did Marvel announce that we didn't already know? Not much, thor and Cap America are coming, it was well documented that the Avengers get together was going to happen, hell Ruffalo's and Remmer's casting was all expected prior, as was Whedon's confirmation of directing the thing. All it really was was an opportunity to preach to the choir.

 

[The Sage]

What. The. F**k.

This is a terrible stance to take and a slap in the face to artists that strive to actually put out a quality product for the masses. Not one decent fan in the world is "glad" they have an atrocious movie to represent their hero.

DC is an incredibly more cautious studio than Marvel. They don't hit the reset button as feverishly as they do. Getting back-to-back Hulk, Punisher, Fantastic Four, and soon to be Ghost Rider films, shows you they're just churning these things out until it finally sticks.

DC fans don't have that luxury. If any of their second-tier hero films tanked or panned as bad as the aforementioned Marvel films...that is it. They are done indefinitely. You can count on those fans waiting another generation or two at the earliest, to even get rumors that a new film is planned.

I'm only gonna speak for myself here, but DC or Marvel, I'd rather not get a film than get a half-assed one. No exceptions.

Agreed.

Wow! 3 pages in less than 24 hours. This thread has been pretty active. I think some people are really missing the point. Noone is dissing DC. It's just that as comic fans, we want to see super heroes on the screen. Whether people want to admit it or not, Marvel is beating DC in that field. Marvel is doing all they can to get their characters exposed in a major way. It's amazing how people know more about Blade(a 4th tier character)moreso than they know about Wonder Woman when it comes to movies and exposure. WW hasn't been seen in anything live since the 70's. That says a lot!

I honestly could careless about Marvel outputting more movies than DC and care more about whether the movies that either company make are worth seeing.

 

[Docker2.0]

Yeah but other than the recent Batman movies, what has DC done that make them worth seeing moreso than Marvel. Again, that's an excuse. There's no freakin reason to have a hundred Batman films but no Flash and GL.

 

[GL's Light]

Here's the breakdown of live action superhero films by studio for the 2008-2011 period:

Marvel Studios (5): Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger (one distributed by Universal and four by Paramount)

Lionsgate (3): Punisher: War Zone, The Spirit, Kick-Ass

WB (3): The Dark Knight, Watchmen, Green Lantern

Fox (2): X-Men Origins: Wolverine, X-Men: First Class

Sony (2): Hancock, The Green Hornet

Universal (2): Wanted, Hellboy II: The Golden Army (and that's if one considers Wanted to be in the superhero category)

The Runaways (Marvel Studios) and Ghost Rider 2 (Sony) don't have release dates fixed yet, but they'll likely be 2012 releases.

So broken down by studio, Warners isn't exactly lagging in the production of superhero films at the moment, and if Green Lantern is a good film then the aggregate quality of their superhero films lately will be very high indeed. Whether DC Entertainment delivers on a continuation of this trend of Warners delivering superhero films other than Superman and Batman will be seen as the next few years play out.

There's no freakin reason to have a hundred Batman films but no Flash and GL.

That's a nonsensical statement given that they are indeed making Green Lantern.

 

[The Sage]

Yeah but other than the recent Batman movies, what has DC done that make them worth seeing moreso than Marvel. Again, that's an excuse. There's no freakin reason to have a hundred Batman films but no Flash and GL.

Sure there is...they knew for sure Batman would make them money and weren't comfortable experimenting with other properties beyond really known characters. Now they are, and that's why as others have said there was a Watchmen film, The Losers, Red this fall, and next year Green Lantern. WB's coming out of their comfort zone, finally.

 

[GL's Light]

Sure there is...they knew for sure Batman would make them money and weren't comfortable experimenting with other properties beyond really known characters. Now they are, and that's why as others have said there was a Watchmen film, The Losers, Red this fall, and next year Green Lantern. WB's coming out of their comfort zone, finally.

I agree with your overall point, but Red is being made by Summit Entertainment rather than Warners. It's a rare instance of Warners allowing a DC property, that will actually carry the DC logo, to be made by another studio. Also, in terms of non-superhero DC/Vertigo adaptations Warners has been delivering in that department for a while now (such as with Constantine and V for Vendetta). It's in the 2009-2011 period that they've ramped up and moved into the arena of delivering superhero epics featuring characters other than Superman and Batman.

 

[MadVillainy]

I think some people are really missing the point. Noone is dissing DC. It's just that as comic fans, we want to see super heroes on the screen. Whether people want to admit it or not, Marvel is beating DC in that field. Marvel is doing all they can to get their characters exposed in a major way. It's amazing how people know more about Blade(a 4th tier character)moreso than they know about Wonder Woman when it comes to movies and exposure. WW hasn't been seen in anything live since the 70's. That says a lot!

Agreed

I like DC characters alot more then Marvel characters. DC has been owning Marvel in animation department. And I think DC has more classic storylines. I even own more DC comics then Marvel.
But to act like DC is equal or even better than Marvel at making live action films is ludicrous. Especially when most of the arguments are just talking about Batman

 

[S.A.A.D.]

At this point,I couldn't careless about DC really,for me there is only a very limited amount of superheroes of theirs' that I find appealing. RED looks like another mediocre and generic entry into the comic book movie genre,and so does The Losers,there is nothing really comic booky about them. The Flash pretty much sucks, Aquaman is a question mark,and Wonder Woman is okay at best imo. I can't stand movies that are based on comic books that aren't comic booky at all.

And since I don't actually care for animated comic book movies from Marvel or DC,I still think that Marvel is better based on that and the amount of their movies that I have seen,and their old cartoons. DC is still too consistently disappointing from where I stand.

 

[Heretic]

Since we're talking about DC not making any movies...

If you add up all of the theatrical releases...DC and Marvel are TIED for number of movies.

If you add in serials released to theaters (which you shouldnt) as well as Superman And The Mole Men (which went to theaters, so technically you should) then DC still beats Marvel in output. I'm not counting movies that went straight to tv/dvd...but DC would still be in the lead if you counted those.

When Red is released later this year DC will go up by 1...which will finally be overtaken by Marvel next summer.

That's right...it took Marvel the entire history of their company to finally overtake DC's output in 2011.

I'm glad that Marvel is finally picking up the ball...but after several decades of being behind, that's hardly something I'd brag about or criticize DC for.

 

[Docker2.0]

Here's the breakdown of live action superhero films by studio for the 2008-2011 period:

Marvel Studios (5): Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger (one distributed by Universal and four by Paramount)

Lionsgate (3): Punisher: War Zone, The Spirit, Kick-Ass

WB (3): The Dark Knight, Watchmen, Green Lantern

Fox (2): X-Men Origins: Wolverine, X-Men: First Class

Sony (2): Hancock, The Green Hornet

Universal (2): Wanted, Hellboy II: The Golden Army (and that's if one considers Wanted to be in the superhero category)

The Runaways (Marvel Studios) and Ghost Rider 2 (Sony) don't have release dates fixed yet, but they'll likely be 2012 releases.

So broken down by studio, Warners isn't exactly lagging in the production of superhero films at the moment, and if Green Lantern is a good film then the aggregate quality of their superhero films lately will be very high indeed. Whether DC Entertainment delivers on a continuation of this trend of Warners delivering superhero films other than Superman and Batman will be seen as the next few years play out.


That's a nonsensical statement given that they are indeed making Green Lantern.

Dude, I know that! I'm just saying Batman has been given the chance over and over again despite it failing occassionally(Batman and Robin, Batman Forever)but yet we are just now getting GL and no Flash. But if GL fails, there is no way we will get a GL reboot any time soon nor a Flash movie.

 

[RogueDK]

WB/DC will eventually get their act together seeing that Marvel sort of stole the spotlight at Comic-Con this past weekend.

As a DC fanboy I have to think positive. t:

 

[HighFivingMF]

Dude, I know that! I'm just saying Batman has been given the chance over and over again despite it failing occassionally(Batman and Robin, Batman Forever)but yet we are just now getting GL and no Flash. But if GL fails, there is no way we will get a GL reboot any time soon nor a Flash movie.

Well, they greenlit Green Lantern because somebody came to them with a good idea, they're not going to take a possible major property and make a movie out of it for the sake of making a movie out of it. That's why they've hired Greg Berlanti and the rest of the Green Lantern team to write the story for a Flash movie. Berlanti is very vocal about being a fan of both Hal Jordan and Barry Allen, so he must have brought in a good idea for The Flash to WB as well.

They just have a different strategy than Marvel Studios, Marvel seems more "make the movie, if it's bad then we can try it again in a few years." with their big characters. It's worked a few times (X-Men, Spider-Man, Iron Man) and failed in other places. Whereas DC waits for the idea think is right for each character, then move forward with the movie. I'm sure that's the strategy they'll stick with since they've seen the effects of flipping around creative teams with Jonah Hex, and the Schumacher Batman sequels (Well, Batman and Robin. As far as I know Batman Forever was more successful than Batman Returns.)

 

[The Sage]

Dude, I know that! I'm just saying Batman has been given the chance over and over again despite it failing occassionally(Batman and Robin, Batman Forever)but yet we are just now getting GL and no Flash. But if GL fails, there is no way we will get a GL reboot any time soon nor a Flash movie.

[Sherlock Holmes]Well, now we have a firm grasp of the obvious.[/Sherlock Holmes]



As said before, WB knows that Batman can make them money which is why the company's willing to reboot despite past failures. The other properties, they aren't sure about.

 

[GL's Light]

Dude, I know that!

You might know it, but it's not what you said. You said "no Flash and GL". Given that I'm not a mind reader, I can only respond to you on what you actually say.

 

[Docker2.0]

[Sherlock Holmes]Well, now we have a firm grasp of the obvious.[/Sherlock Holmes]



As said before, WB knows that Batman can make them money which is why the company's willing to reboot despite past failures. The other properties, they aren't sure about.

Everything seems to revolve around Batman, that's the problem. Even Superman has taken a backseat to him. That should not be the case since he's the one who kinda got it started.

Well, they greenlit Green Lantern because somebody came to them with a good idea, they're not going to take a possible major property and make a movie out of it for the sake of making a movie out of it. That's why they've hired Greg Berlanti and the rest of the Green Lantern team to write the story for a Flash movie. Berlanti is very vocal about being a fan of both Hal Jordan and Barry Allen, so he must have brought in a good idea for The Flash to WB as well.

They just have a different strategy than Marvel Studios, Marvel seems more "make the movie, if it's bad then we can try it again in a few years." with their big characters. It's worked a few times (X-Men, Spider-Man, Iron Man) and failed in other places. Whereas DC waits for the idea think is right for each character, then move forward with the movie. I'm sure that's the strategy they'll stick with since they've seen the effects of flipping around creative teams with Jonah Hex, and the Schumacher Batman sequels (Well, Batman and Robin. As far as I know Batman Forever was more successful than Batman Returns.)

I think Marvel was trying to stop from going bankrupt which is why they sold their character rights to have movies, not just to throw movies out. Huge difference. It's just that studios like Fox look at the money more than the product. Ghost Rider should not have been rated pg-13!

You might know it, but it's not what you said. You said "no Flash and GL". Given that I'm not a mind reader, I can only respond to you on what you actually say.

Try harder!