Why Can't DC Get it right?

[KangConquers]

I'm glad we're even getting Green Lantern; some of you seem to think it's a sure fire thing, but this is a character that's basically gone completely untapped outside of the comic book world; no tv series, titular animated series, no previous attempts at a movie. The risk of doing a movie for a character like that, with a price tag of 150 million in the middle of one of the most competitive summers of all time, shows some balls from WB; this isn't a safe move, it's a risky move in order to expand their stable of film characters.

Outside of Batman, the comicbook genre hasn't been kind to WB from a fiscal perspective; I understand their apprehension.

 

[Octoberist]

You can say that about Thor.

In theory, Captain America Is the most recognizable name. Quality wise, it's up in the air with all three.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Let's be honest, would we even want an adaptation of any of the other DC films before this decade?

Look at what happened to Superman during the 80s and Batman during the 90s, and if it wasn't for Christopher Nolan the Batman films probably wouldn't be as popular, especially considering when you look at the cancelled projects (though Batman Beyond probably had the most potential of all the cancelled films.).

I can't blame WB for Superman Returns though. That was all Singer's fault and WB thought they had a winner when Singer actually ended up screwing Superman over. To me that what the opposite (not the complete opposite ala Schumacher but I consider it the opposite.)

But I honestly believe that before this decade any of the DC's other superhero films would've been bad or mishandled.

 

[KangConquers]

You can say that about Thor.

In theory, Captain America Is the most recognizable name. Quality wise, it's up in the air with all three.

Thor is the smallest name, but not by much. Both Thor and GL sort of fit that high b-list low a-list billing. That said, Thor has the best release date possible for a summer film; even McGruber could've made money if it had the May 1-7th release date.

Cap is the most famous of the three but has the most negative connotations; he has to overcome the perception that he's an icon of american imperialism. Even if Cap does fairly well in the states (I'm predicting 200-250 million domestically), First Avenger is sunk in foreign markets.

Ultimately I hope all 3 do enough money to warrant sequels, and all 3 are good enough to warrant the wait; of all the comic book characters who haven't gotten big movies yet, Cap, Thor and GL are my 3 favs, and I'm hoping all three are homeruns.

BTW, I love how no one on either board even recognizes X-Men: First Class as a legitimate film project.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Thor is the smallest name, but not by much. Both Thor and GL sort of fit that high b-list low a-list billing. That said, Thor has the best release date possible for a summer film; even McGruber could've made money if it had the May 1-7th release date.

Cap is the most famous of the three but has the most negative connotations; he has to overcome the perception that he's an icon of american imperialism. Even if Cap does fairly well in the states (I'm predicting 200-250 million domestically), First Avenger is sunk in foreign markets.

Ultimately I hope all 3 do enough money to warrant sequels, and all 3 are good enough to warrant the wait; of all the comic book characters who haven't gotten big movies yet, Cap, Thor and GL are my 3 favs, and I'm hoping all three are homeruns.

BTW, I love how no one on either board even recognizes X-Men: First Class as a legitimate film project.

I would say Thor is much less popular because he's had even less appearances in other media than GL. He wasn't really in the Marvel animation Universe other than a few guest appearances. He was in a tv Hulk film, if I remember right, but he never had his own series. Granted Captain America never had his own series, but he's Captain America. Thor did have that Marvel Superheroes show in the 60s though.

Green Lantern still had Justice League and Justice League Unlimited along with being a supporting character in various Superfriends incarnations along with making appearance the newer Batman cartoons. I would say Green Lantern is more popular than Thor as a comic book character though its roots in Norse Mytholgy will definitely help Thor.

 

[Spidey-Quad]

I read today at Dark Horizon's tha work on GL sequel is already in progress and set to play the tear after. If GL performs well a third movie is set to go and be ready the following year after GL 2.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/17946/-green-lantern-trilogy-planned-

Sounds like they like what they're seeing.

 

[Octoberist]

BTW, I love how no one on either board even recognizes X-Men: First Class as a legitimate film project.

Thor and Green Lantern are pretty much done filming and they're coming out in May and June respectively. First Class still hasn't filmed, and won't until September, and it's coming out in June.

That's why I'm 'ehh' on it despite Matt Vaughn leading the way. Plus, after two bad X films and Fox's rep, I'm wary of it.

 

[ALP]

Lantern must be a terrific film or else it won't do well. It's not a name that will automatically draw in millions like Batman or Superman(hell, Superman draws and you see how that last film did).

Lantern will need good worth of mouth and a great marketing campaign, or it will end up doing mediocre like Fantastic 4 in the BO.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Lantern must be a terrific film or else it won't do well. It's not a name that will automatically draw in millions like Batman or Superman(hell, Superman draws and you see how that last film did).

Lantern will need good worth of mouth and a great marketing campaign, or it will end up doing mediocre like Fantastic 4 in the BO.

This

 

[GL's Light]

Lantern will need good worth of mouth and a great marketing campaign, or it will end up doing mediocre like Fantastic 4 in the BO.

That's true of all next summer's superhero films.

 

[TheShah]

I think the GL movie is gonna be a HUGE turning point for DC, considering it's the first major film title after Batman for them.
Also the fact that it's being made under the supervision of Geoff Johns, who's probably the sole reason why Green Lantern has become such hot property over the last couple of years to begin with, is what lends the project a LOT of credibility.

The outcome of the success of GL will what makes or breaks DC's live action feature film plans.
With Geoff Johns as Chief Creative Officer of DC... I'm excited.
I'm going to pretend JONAH HEX didn't happen.

 

[TheShah]

What I DO like about DC's plans so far, is the fact that they're creating an animated universe and doing storylines DIRECTLY from the comic (SUPERMAN/BATMAN: PUBLIC ENEMIES)
Also doing origin movies for certain heroes as a testing of the waters before a live action feature. (GREEN LANTERN: FIRST FLIGHT)

Also, DC has a lot of cool smaller and successful imprints than Marvel to choose source material for, no necessarily superhero movies, but wicked stories in general.
I think given enough time, DC can rival Marvel's film portfolio.

Marvel has always been more quantity than quality.

 

[JBElliott]

The best thing DC and WB could do is get Timm and Dini to take over their live action superhero films.

 

[Docker2.0]

What I DO like about DC's plans so far, is the fact that they're creating an animated universe and doing storylines DIRECTLY from the comic (SUPERMAN/BATMAN: PUBLIC ENEMIES)
Also doing origin movies for certain heroes as a testing of the waters before a live action feature. (GREEN LANTERN: FIRST FLIGHT)

Also, DC has a lot of cool smaller and successful imprints than Marvel to choose source material for, no necessarily superhero movies, but wicked stories in general.
I think given enough time, DC can rival Marvel's film portfolio.

Marvel has always been more quantity than quality.

Really? I mean...............really?

 

[TheShah]

Really? I mean...............really?

Well when I say 'always' I'm talking about prior to the current movie-verse they're executing.
And the critical success of those movies have always been hit and miss.

Marvel churned out a lot more movies over the last 10 years than DC has, you have to admit.
DC's biggest properties have been Batman and Superman.
Where as Marvel's had X-Men, Blade, Hulk (Eric Bana version) Ghost Rider, Fantastic Four, Daredevil, Elektra, Spider-Man, etc.

 

[Docker2.0]

That's not what you said. You said DC does quality over quantity which is bs. While I agree Marvel has churned out a lot of movies, some bad some good, they've all done well at the BO except Hulk, which I don't understand. Other than Nolan's Batman, what has DC done that has done great at the BO? And it's no knock on John's because I believe its the suits at WB, not him. He has an uphill battle to fight. I do think/hope that GL will be the barometer for other DC properties and here's hoping it does well.

 

[TheShah]

That's not what you said. You said DC does quality over quantity which is bs. While I agree Marvel has churned out a lot of movies, some bad some good, they've all done well at the BO except Hulk, which I don't understand. Other than Nolan's Batman, what has DC done that has done great at the BO? And it's no knock on John's because I believe its the suits at WB, not him. He has an uphill battle to fight. I do think/hope that GL will be the barometer for other DC properties and here's hoping it does well.

No. I said Marvel does quantity over quality.
That doesn't imply the other way around for DC.

My point was that DC's has a fraction of the releases that Marvel's had over the years, but out of SUPERMAN RETURNS, CATWOMAN, the Nolan's films, the two Batman movies have done amazingly.
Whereas Marvel has so many releases that it's hit/miss (again, recent exceptions with the Avengers set up solo movies)
I guess what I mean DC's had a better success ratio, but that's because they've had few releases.

I'm not taking sides, I'm saying that DC's far behind the movie market compared to Marvel.
And I hope that changes now that Johns is onboard.
I'm agreeing with you.

 

[Docker2.0]

Are you serious? With the exception of Nolan's Batman and Superman Returns, there is nothing else. Catwoman bombed and the Vertigo titles barely made over $100M domestically, if they did at all.

 

[TheShah]

Are you serious? With the exception of Nolan's Batman and Superman Returns, there is nothing else. Catwoman bombed and the Vertigo titles barely made over $100M domestically, if they did at all.

Yes, that's why I said that out of those movies, Nolan's movies did amazingly... implying that the others, not at all.
And the Vertigo titles don't really compare to the major characters depicted in ALL of Marvel's films.
Which is why I mentioned 'DC's biggest properties', leaving out the smaller Vertigo titles.

I don't understand what you're arguing at this point, when I've already told you I'm agreeing with you.

 

[Docker2.0]

Yes, that's why I said that out of those movies, Nolan's movies did amazingly... implying that the others, not at all.
And the Vertigo titles don't really compare to the major characters depicted in ALL of Marvel's films.
Which is why I mentioned 'DC's biggest properties', leaving out the smaller Vertigo titles.

I don't understand what you're arguing at this point, when I've already told you I'm agreeing with you.

You're not agreeing right!

Seriously, I think the quality over quantity argument is just bs. Not arguing, just saying. I'm very happy that GL is getting his own movie but part of me feels that TDK making so much money will actually hurt DC getting more of their characters on film. We won't get any movie crossovers because Nolan doesn't want to, Batman has had like 20 cartoons in the past 20 years, and.................I just lost my train of thought.

 

[Hellion]

Agreed. And just what is so wrong with them doing The Losers and Jonah Hex? It's called being diverse.

How was Losers btw? Also...is The Losers comic set in the main DC Universe or in its own world? (Sorry...not familiar with it?)

 

[BlackLantern]

its own world....was a decent action movie

 

[Hellion]

its own world....was a decent action movie

Would you buy it......or is it a good occasional rental?

 

[BlackLantern]

I bought it for like 15 at Target....to me it was worth it

 

[TheShah]

You're not agreeing right!

Seriously, I think the quality over quantity argument is just bs. Not arguing, just saying. I'm very happy that GL is getting his own movie but part of me feels that TDK making so much money will actually hurt DC getting more of their characters on film. We won't get any movie crossovers because Nolan doesn't want to, Batman has had like 20 cartoons in the past 20 years, and.................I just lost my train of thought.

Hahaha!!
OK, I think when I said DC is quality over quantity, I didn't mean to imply that Marvel movies suck. Again: I DID NOT IMPLY MARVEL MOVIES = less quality.

Facts:
1) DC has fewer movie big name movie properties than Marvel.
2) A lot of Marvel's major film titles have failed (either at BO or critically)

Marvel's been very successful at spinning their comic book titles into film franchises for years; from BLADE to SPIDERMAN to X-MEN, etc... and they're only going to be on the rise with the innovative cross-over movie-verse concept they have going on right now.

DC's last HUGE release besides the Batman movies was SUPERMAN RETURNS in 2006, and that failed it's expectations at the BO.
So hopefully DC can take the success of TDK, scale back, reach into their amazing character pool other than the Holy Trinity, and make some successful and interesting film properties.
And if those work, who's to say we won't see a Green Lantern Corps movie, or something along those lines... even if it doesn't involve Batman, Superman, etc.
I mean how many successful franchises has Marvel created before they've launched this Avengers crossover?
So let's give DC some slack to catch up...