Why Can't DC Get it right?

[The Sage]

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.

Yeah but as it stands, Batman's the more popular hero, so focusing on him makes sense since he brings in the most money.

Are you missing that point?

 

[Heretic]

Batman is not only more popular, but he's easier to do.

People criticize DC for not having a Flash movie...but let's face it...most comic artists can't even make his speed power look decent, so what hope is there for a live action to make it look acceptably awesome?

 

[The Sage]

Batman is not only more popular, but he's easier to do.

That too.

 

[GL's Light]

Actually I think the Flash is a natural for a live action adaptation. It's easier to come up with cool ways to show super speed in live action than it is in static imagery.

 

[Heretic]

Yeah, but most attempts on tv and movies have looked pretty stupid...

 

[GL's Light]

Yeah, but most attempts on tv and movies have looked pretty stupid...

With current movie FX it could look great, though, regardless of how it's been handled in the past.

 

[Heretic]

Yes...CURRENT....

People were complaining about no Green Lantern movie a decade ago. How would that have looked???

"But Marvel did Punisher...DC should be able to do Green Lantern...what's the difference?"

 

[GL's Light]

Yes...CURRENT....

People were complaining about no Green Lantern movie a decade ago. How would that have looked???

"But Marvel did Punisher...DC should be able to do Green Lantern...what's the difference?"

Yeah, I made that point a little while go on a different thread. As frustrated as some fans have been that more DC superhero films weren't made earlier there are a number of silver linings: filmmaking technology and the experience gained from seeing what works and what doesn't in other superhero films should - at least if the filmmakers involved do their due diligence - lead to much better films now than if they had been made earlier. Plus from the studio's perspective they have a lot of untapped properties to utilize.

 

[Heretic]

Exactly, while DC was doing major damage to Batman...and possibly permanent damage to Superman...Marvel wasn't making movies. Years later, not only did technology improve, but the mindset on what a superhero movie should be, changed. This led to more "serious" films with better effects. Had X-Men been done in the 80's or 90's it would have been a poorly done day-glo nightmare. Instead, DC blazed that trail and made the mistakes...and it destroyed their ability to make films. Marvel capitalized on the new technology and respect given to the properties and made some great films. Marvel has also stumbled in the process with some crapfests. Now, DC is beginning to convince the higher ups that their properties can be done correctly and profitably...and look good thanks to modern technology...and slowly the execs are starting to warm up to the idea.

 

[The Batman]

The more I look at sources outside these threads, the more I realize this "Marvel owned DC at Comic Con" is just a matter of fans not seeing the forest through the trees.

http://www.newsarama.com/comics/SDCC-News-Roundup-Marvel-DC-100726.html

With the level of complaining on these boards, I was actually surprised at the result. Not only that, but I found another poll on these very boards...

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=338233

The funny thing is, when I talk to comic fans who dont come to message boards, they dont turn every comic movie discussion into some stupid pissing contest. They're more excited about seeing individual heroes than one company winning over the other.

 

[GL's Light]

The urge some fans have to turn everything into a pissing contest is kind of sad really. There were no big new announcements from either company in film terms at Comic-Con. Things that had broken previously were confirmed (Whedon, Renner, and Ruffalo on The Avengers). There were the usual teaser trailers and Q&A sessions. Both the DC and Marvel film panels had memorable highlights, one planned and one a beautiful chance moment: the assembled cast of The Avengers and Ryan Reynolds reciting the Green Lantern oath for an adorable kid. Good stuff all around.

 

[Octoberist]

to be honest, Marvel has a firm grip on their projects because they don't have to go through the studio system. DC Entertainment is still a part of WB, so of course you'll have to go through redtape to greenlight a project.

I honestly think that with the Green Lantern panel, that 'kid' moment was magical. Also, I'm sure they're still working on the suit. I'm betting they're retweaking it a bit too.

 

[GL's Light]

to be honest, Marvel has a firm grip on their projects because they don't have to go through the studio system.

They're going to have to answer to Disney in future, though, so keeping the grosses up will be essential to them maintaining a free hand. If the grosses slip and Disney is footing the bill they'll see their slate curtailed.

 

[Tony Stark]

Exactly, while DC was doing major damage to Batman...and possibly permanent damage to Superman...Marvel wasn't making movies. Years later, not only did technology improve, but the mindset on what a superhero movie should be, changed. This led to more "serious" films with better effects. Had X-Men been done in the 80's or 90's it would have been a poorly done day-glo nightmare. Instead, DC blazed that trail and made the mistakes...and it destroyed their ability to make films. Marvel capitalized on the new technology and respect given to the properties and made some great films. Marvel has also stumbled in the process with some crapfests. Now, DC is beginning to convince the higher ups that their properties can be done correctly and profitably...and look good thanks to modern technology...and slowly the execs are starting to warm up to the idea.

I certainly hope that's the case, and yes I don't think a GL film in the 90's would have been very good, as CGI was expensive and in it's infancy. I remember being blown away by Jurassic Park when I saw it in the theater. Now almost 20 years later, the CGI looks dated, but still very enjoyable.

Marvel in the 90's almost went bankrupt, do to the comic bust in the early 90's. Alot of people were collecting books with the thought that they would be a great investment. Of course the reason the Golden and Silver age comics are worth so much is due to the scarseness of finding a good print. When people found out that there were 3, 4, and even 5 runs of printings of so-called "valuable" books, the buble burst, and Marvel was forcing to sell movie rights to it's characters to generate cash, which led to the Punisher, Captain America, and Roger Corman's Fantastic Four.

This crash effected DC too, but because they were a wholy owned subsidary of Warner, they weren't in jeopardy like Marvel was.

After the restructuring and Avi Arad came to the forefront, he really did a great job of marketing these characters to the public. The problem was that for all the Success of the Spider-man movies, Sony saw the lion's share of the profits, and they seemed to lose control of the characters with companies like Fox.

The need to form Marvel Studios wasn't to create the so-called, "Marvel Cinematic Universe" but to gain control of the characters, and be able to generate more money for the company.

That brings us to the Disney Merger. The fact is a movie studio that only makes comic book movies wasn't going to survive, despite the success of Iron Man. The merger with Disney was to give stability to the company where they can be more creative.

The problem as I've mentioned with DC and Warner, is that Warner has way too much controll over decision making. Someone mentioned that Warner wanted to take the rings out of the GL film. That pretty much shows the mentality of the board room at Warner.

Hopefully the'll start making some of these other properties, before people really do get sick of comic book movies. That would be the biggest shame of all.

 

[Heretic]

Marvel could have been successful making only comic book movies...they just would have had to diversify.

Imagine how awesome it would be for the industry if Marvel bought reprint rights to...say...Strangers In Paradise Volume 1...and along with that came movie rights...they could make inexpensive movies that appeal to a completely different general audience crowd (as well as any comic fans with good taste) and help the industry in general (and indie fandom's view of Marvel)

 

[GL's Light]

Marvel could have been successful making only comic book movies...they just would have had to diversify.

No, the move to be acquired by a major corporation with deep pockets was necessary. Even had they diversified their output they still would have been carrying far too much concentrated risk for a company of their size had they continued funding their own movies as an independent through a credit line. Pretty much every independent film company that's got into the milieu of big budget filmmaking has gone bankrupt in relatively short order as they just weren't big enough to absorb the losses from just one or two big setbacks. I think Marvel sold at exactly the right time. Whether they chose the right major corporation to sell to is still an open question, one that will be answered in the years to come.

 

[Heretic]

That's not really true. New Line for instance became a massive studio on it's own. The best reason to sell out is to not have to learn on the job...just let Disney take over all the nonsense marvel couldnt figure out fast enough.

 

[GL's Light]

That's not really true. New Line for instance became a massive studio on it's own.

New Line wasn't making big budget films when they were an independent. They became successful on the back of low budget horror films that were very profitable. New Line only made big budget films once they had been acquired by Time Warner. And even after the massive success of The Lord of the Rings New Line in the few years that followed fared so poorly in big budget filmmaking that most of their staff were fired and their operations were folded into Warners.

 

[Heretic]

New Line wasn't making big budget films when they were an independent. They became successful on the back of low budget horror films that were very profitable. New Line only made big budget films once they had been acquired by Time Warner. And even after the massive success of The Lord of the Rings New Line in the few years that followed fared so poorly in big budget filmmaking that most of their staff were fired and their operations were folded into Warners.

Which is why I said they'd have to diversify and focus on smaller budgeted films.

Of course, most people here want a 400 million budget for Punisher, so this isnt the best website to be talking budget restraint...

 

[GL's Light]

Which is why I said they'd have to diversify and focus on smaller budgeted films.

I thought you meant diversify and make low budget and big budget films. If they shifted to making just low budget films then, yes, they could have remained independent. But if they had any $150-200 million films in the mix then making a deal to be acquired by a major studio was the right way to go.

 

[jmc]

Absolutely, Marvel couldn't rely on Superhero flicks alone to stay afloat, it would have been suicidal. Getting bought by Disney is probably the best thing they could have done, at least now if a film flops massively it won't hurt as much (it'll still hurt though).

 

[Tony Stark]

Absolutely, Marvel couldn't rely on Superhero flicks alone to stay afloat, it would have been suicidal. Getting bought by Disney is probably the best thing they could have done, at least now if a film flops massively it won't hurt as much (it'll still hurt though).

And that's really the bottom line, it allows them to be creative without having to be a massive success.

I thought TIH was a great movie, but financially it was not. this really could have hurt marvel if the first IM was not a huge success. But now they can produce movies like say....Ant Man, which probably isn't going to be a big draw.

Anyway it will be interesting to see what happens.

As far as Warner, I'd really like to see them treat DC with Legendary Pictures and run them like Marvel Studios. As I said when some bone headed exec comes in and says they should get rid of the power ring in the GL films. That deserves a serious WTF. You have to have people involved that understand the comics for it to be successful.

Case in point, Nolan and his crew took the source material very seriously and made two movies among the best in the genre. Schumaker had access to the same source material, but doing stuff like making Batgirl Alfred's niece? Again serious WTF moment.

It seems like GL is being treated seriously. I'm not thrilled with Reynolds or Lively, but it still can be a great film if the other production elements are in order. As I've said several times before, Mark Strong is an excellent choice, and will hopefully add some gravitas to the casting.

 

[GL's Light]

Geoff Johns told that story about the Warners exec. It happened about a decade ago, but unfortunately execs like that have a way of popping up all over the place. It's not just at Warners either of course. Michael Chabon has told the story of how he went in and pitched to write Fantastic Four for Fox and the execs he met with were openly contemptuous of the material. Avi Arad takes a lot of heat in some quarters, but he not only saved Marvel as a business he also fought to keep at least some adherence to the comics in Marvel adaptations, even though he didn't always make the right calls or win every battle.

With the reorganization at Warners we now have a situation where Diane Nelson and Geoff Jones have a direct line to Jeff Robinov, and DC properties have been taken back from producers who weren't able to develop them properly. Robinov has been determined to smooth out and speed up the development of DC properties and power has been shifting to him within Warners. So the future is hopeful, although whether that hope comes to fruition and delivers the kind of results we'd like remains to be seen.

 

[Spidey-Quad]

Batman is not only more popular, but he's easier to do.

People criticize DC for not having a Flash movie...but let's face it...most comic artists can't even make his speed power look decent, so what hope is there for a live action to make it look acceptably awesome?

I'm sorry but I've read one stupid post from you after an other. I'd been trying to give you the benifit of the doubt. But I have to say after reading a few days worth (or worthless?) posts, the way you simplify things to suit your points of view is second only to DC fanboy the Baitman.

The Flash is a visual concept and should translate easily to the average special effects studio, and be a wet-dream to any good to great Fx studio. To claim it would be hard a hardship is to cling to religion of the obtuse.

Would it be a challenge? Yes. Ground breaking? After Matrix, Wanted, and the power of WETA & Industrial Light & Magic I wouldn't go that far. But to claim it's a game breaking obstacle?

Try taking your time before responding to your standard what "I" would want reality You can screw all the numbers you like about both companies. But you cannot compare DC to Marvel on their movies concerning their Super-Hero's.

You like to crunch numbers try comparing how many Super-Hero movies have been made for single properties. Who's taken the larger chances. And whose put out for their fan's.

It only took DC/WB how many Batman tries before getting it right? And I would argue it took a home made internet movie's fantastic numbers after a Comic Con to get Warner's eyes to open to the realization that people wanted a hard-core darker knight.

Make all your silly excuses. Feel good about your pretzel logic. Pat your backs on what equates to poor management. Until DC get's their act together they will be trailling the leader.

Get it through your thick fan-boy head

"When THEY Finally Get It Right" we'll all be happy about it.

To all the realistic DC's fan's, I salute you. You've come up with some really well thought out solutions! We can only hope someone from Warner is paying attention.

 

[GL's Light]

It only took DC/WB how many Batman tries before getting it right?

Well, one actually. The '89 film was a huge hit and was an extremely important milestone in the superhero genre, a big step forward in studios taking superhero films seriously, affording them big budgets and making them with a dark tone. The series veered off course with the Schumacher films and the genre needed X-Men to get back on course, but the '89 film was a very important building block in the genre's history.