Is DC even going to try to compete with Marvel on the big screen?

[ronedog22]

Is it just me or did The Dark Knight never make it to cable/premium TV?

on TNT recently

[Flashpoint]

The script for GL was also really really god awful, maybe even more so then the movie. Can't downplay what a terrible job those writers did and how badly they botched it from inception.

I intended to reply to 2 other posts first, but you're a bit off-base here. The script, its plot and its dialogue are all frequently and frankly almost always revised by the director and cast on any movie. Writers have very little control over what producers and directors decide to keep, remove and/or completely change in the script during filming.

One example is the intro about the history of Oa and the GL Corps. As I have read elsewhere, none of that was in the original script. It was all added later and allegedly at WB's insistence. The overall point is, don't blame every line of dialogue or every scene in the final cut of the movie on the script. The producers and directors always change what is in the script during shooting. Sometimes, as with "Iron Man," the actors will improv lines on-set and the directors or producers will agree that what the actor comes up with is better than what was in the script. Audiences don't always agree, but the issue is that the script isn't carved in stone--every writer is forced to accept that the studio, the director and the actors will almost always dramatically rewrite what you have written. Good scripts often die horrible deaths in the rewrite process during production.

Though I liked but didn't love GL, I have to ultimately agree with those who criticize the producers, the directors or the cast as they are the ones who have the greatest influence on the final story we see onscreen.

Don't make me quote the hell Kevin Smith went through trying to incorporate producer Jon Peters' ludicrously awful ideas into his "Superman Lives" script. What a nightmare that was! Again--don't automatically blame the writers; they have very, very little control of what ends up onscreen.

[Flashpoint]

There was nothing wrong with the script. The problem was the producers insisted on droppping a lot of the script, particularily the characterisation bits, the talky stuff, to fit in more fights.

THANK YOU!!

carabas is exactly right. The original script got solidly positive reviews from multiple websites who scored a copy. The final version of the GL movie is very much changed from the original screenplay. WB insisted on many rewrites during the pre-production and production process.

WB execs were very hands-on with GL. Contrast that with Nolan's Batman films where the biggest change execs insisted on with that is pushing Nolan to include the Batmobile in "Batman Begins." Yeah, you read that right--Nolan originally didn't want to include a Batmobile, but WB insisted (toy sales were no small factor in their call) and Nolan & Goyer cooked up the idea of the Tumbler. One of the few times WB execs got it right; I can't ever imagine Batman without the Batmobile.

I like Martin Campbell. His James Bond in "Casino Royale" was brilliant. I will always long to see his original cut of GL. But Campbell has never done movies that achieved the level of complexity or critical acclaim that a Hollywood golden boy auteur like Chris Nolan's have.

People who leap at blaming the script are kidding themselves if they are foolish enough to think that Hollywood has serious respect for writers. Or has everyone forgotten that classic scene from "Shadow Of The Vampire?"

"Max Schreck: I don't think we need the writer any longer.
F.W. Murnau: Go ahead! Eat the writer!"

[Flashpoint]

I haven't read anything confirming Luthor for the sequel, I just sort of presumed they would use him for the sequel. I'm suprised their not using him, he is the most recognisable Superman villain and he could be adapted very easily on to the big screen, using him would open up countless story possiblities. Brainiac on the other hand would be a lot harder to adapt for the big screen, many non-comic fans would find his name ridicolous, and you would need a massive budget to pull it off.

Are you kidding? Both fans and moviegoers are completely sick to death of Lex Luthor. The very mention of his name elicits groans as does the grossly excessive, beaten-to-death gimmick of Luthor always being out to score the latest evil land redevelopment scheme. If anything, saving Luthor for the third chapter (or later) in a new Superman film franchise is a very wise and effective move to give Lex a rest and spend some time developing other Superman villains who have languished for years waiting in the wings. Brainiac has always been the #1 choice on almost every poll of the Superman villain people most want to see next onscreen.

Again, so far the "unnamed force" that destroys Krypton hasn't been *officially* confirmed as Brainiac. But looking back at how Nolan & Goyer decided to reboot Batman by looking at great villains that hadn't been exploited like Ras Al Ghul and the Scarecrow, I am optimistic that this rumor is going to pan out. And frankly, it's about damn time. Most of us have been waiting for over 25 years to finally see Brainiac onscreen. I hope "Man Of Steel" at long last succeeds in bringing him to theaters.

I mean't a DC animated movie thats released in Cinemas with a very different style of animation to the direct to DVD movies.

No, I understood what you meant and that's exactly what I was addressing. WB has shown no indication that they want to start competing directly with Disney or Universal with animated features in theaters. And I think that's a wise choice--trying to take on Pixar or the creators of "Despicable Me" and "The Lorax" without any proven box office track record with animated feature films would be extremely risky and even foolhardy.

It would be very hard to make Aquaman work in film, and with the neccessary massive budget I doubt WB would be willing to take a chance. Maybe if they left Atlantis out of the majority of the movie then a lot of costs would be cut, Aquaman doesn't need to be in Atlantis to be a good character.

I think Atlantis would have to be a domed city with an air-filled interior in order for scenes set in Atlantis to work effectively onscreen. They should go with mostly CGI for much of the underwater battles. Any filming underwater is insanely expensive; it almost sunk the careers of both Spielberg and Cameron with all the budget overruns on "Jaws" and "The Abyss." Thankfully, they delivered great films. But there have been more bombs set underwater than box office hits and that is the biggest hurdle Aquaman faces as a potential franchise.

It can be done, but they will have to minimize and limit the number of actual underwater filming in order to keep the budget under control. It will not be easy. I do feel, though, it will eventually happen sometime in the next decade.

Sounds promising.

The New 52 "Savage Hawkman" is almost a photocopy of that Hawkman movie treatment. It might work, but it's gotta be better than just a "Hawkman Smash!!!" action pic. Subtle character development is seriously lacking in this approach. But with a fun script and a smart director, yeah, it could work.

I really liked the sound of Super Max (although the plot did sound a lot like that Daredevil story from a few years back) and I'm sad they didn't go with it. I'm still hoping we'll see the real Green Arrow adapted for live action someday.

I hated the "Super Max" idea. I was so relieved it got dropped. The first time I heard it, all I could think of was "Blade: Trinity."

Aren't the creative team that scripted Green Lantern also writing the Green Arrow pilot? I don't know why DC keep letting them write superhero movies after GL flopped.

It's not what you know or what you do; it's who you know and how many friends you have in high places. And in fairness, the original Berlanti/Green/Guggenheim GL script was very good. The problem was, that original script is absolutely not what we got onscreen. I really wish people would stop dogpiling on Greg, Michael and Marc for story and dialogue decisions made in production that they had no control over.

Or perhaps people need to be reminded that Sam Hamm's original script for the very first Batman movie got majorly rewritten before and during production. There is so much story Hamm included that got changed or removed in the final version. Writers have so little control of the actual, final product.

I mean't one that would be released in cinemas, not straight to DVD.

Again, yes, I understood that. The problem is, WB has no serious track record as an animated movie powerhouse like Pixar, DreamWorks or Universal's red-hot animation team. Animated films are expensive and risky to release when you're jumping into Pixar/Shrek/Lorax territory.

I think DC should produce a Justice League movie with no ties to any other DC movies, and if its a success it should spin into seven movies featuring the solo adventures of the JLA characters. So basically the reverse of what Marvel is doing with the avengers. They shouldn't cover any of the teams origins in the movie, they just get stright to the action. That said I don't mind if they go with a similar to movie plan to Marvel either (Ie bringing together all the characters from the solo movies into one big team movie, like the avengers).

I gotta disagree here. A big part of Robinov's enthusiasm for doing a Justice League movie is seeing all the money Marvel's made off of their linked film franchises. Hollywood always follows the money--and it's only a matter of time before someone makes a serious attempt to concoct their own successful version of that. Especially the studio that owns the entire DC Universe thus allowing them complete and total control of every single DC superhero movie.

I don't think anyone here doubts for a second that Disney & Marvel would give anything to get Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, Silver Surfer, Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Elektra and the X-Men all back under their control like WB has full control of DC.

WB is trying to create their own version of Marvel's formula to compete one-on-one with them at the box office. All involved--from Robinov to Diane Nelson and Geoff Johns--have made statements to this effect.

I really hope some of these get produced.

I think they will. Look, Marvel suffered under the constant haranguing of both regular fans and fans who worked in Hollywood about the infamous "Marvel Movie Curse." From 1978 until 2000 when "X-Men" finally broke the dam, everyone was convinced Marvel would never break "The Curse." It took them 22 years of epic fail trainwrecks like Dolph Lungren's Punisher, Roger Corman's Fantastic Four, Matt Salinger's Captain America and the aborted James Cameron Spider-Man before things finally started to turn around for them at the box office.

And even when "X-Men" was a hit? Still, there were some fans who simply would not let the Marvel Movie Curse die. You had people predicting that the success of "X-Men" and yes, even "Spider-Man" were only flashes in the pan. WB is getting slammed by fans for not matching or dethroning Marvel's newfound box office monarchy. But just like the Marvel Movie Curse, eventually WB will put their failures behind them, too.

[Kiryu]

THANK YOU!!

carabas is exactly right. The original script got solidly positive reviews from multiple websites who scored a copy. The final version of the GL movie is very much changed from the original screenplay. WB insisted on many rewrites during the pre-production and production process.

Disagree completely. The version I read was abyssal. I don't automatically blame the writers and find your phrasing to misrepresent the situation and my criticism to try and paint me as uninformed a stretch. The script I read, like most of the Berlanti/Guggenheim work I have read, was not really my taste(In fact I would go as far as to say that the quality of work they produce is terrible). The movie was wrong from the ground up, from the writers, to the casting of the leads, to the direction, whole 9 yards imo. It's almost impressive how much they did wrong.

Not to assign the blame entirely on the writers, but I think chosing those two represents that from the start WB was going to be making bad decisions about the GL film. Starting with buying that script and imo continuing today beyond the GL franchise with the hiring of Zack Synder. I'd love these guys think outside the box and make some big moves to put out quality movies but no decision or announcement I hear from them inspires me to believe it's going on.

[Lee-Sensei]

No, I understood what you meant and that's exactly what I was addressing. WB has shown no indication that they want to start competing directly with Disney or Universal with animated features in theaters. And I think that's a wise choice--trying to take on Pixar or the creators of "Despicable Me" and "The Lorax" without any proven box office track record with animated feature films would be extremely risky and even foolhardy.

That's what people said about Snow White and the Seven Dwarves and it went on to be the highest grossing film of it's time and was critically acclaimed.

It wouldn't hurt to try. Like Marvel tried with Iron Man. Look at how well that turned out.

[RoyalTailor]

That's what people said about Snow White and the Seven Dwarves and it went on to be the highest grossing film of it's time and was critically acclaimed.

It wouldn't hurt to try. Like Marvel tried with Iron Man. Look at how well that turned out.

If Warner Brothers got the right people and the right writers then they could really pull something off. I'd love to see them release some animated feature films but I simply don't think that they are interested in going in that direction although DC Animation has really been on a roll with good quality animated productions that far exceed those of Marvel Animation although Spectacular Spider Man and The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes are really amazing.

Two major factors that I think are holding WB back from stepping into Cinematic Animation is money and a dedicated studio. I don't think that WB has a studio that is dedicated to animation like Sony Animation, DreamWorks Animation, Walt Disney Animation and Pixar is.

Plus, they no doubt want to tread with caution into the feature animation arena as they wouldn't want to fumble the ball.

[Mr. Holmes]

Disagree completely. The version I read was abyssal. I don't automatically blame the writers and find your phrasing to misrepresent the situation and my criticism to try and paint me as uninformed a stretch. The script I read, like most of the Berlanti/Guggenheim work I have read, was not really my taste(In fact I would go as far as to say that the quality of work they produce is terrible). The movie was wrong from the ground up, from the writers, to the casting of the leads, to the direction, whole 9 yards imo. It's almost impressive how much they did wrong.

I haven't read the script, but No Ordinary Family from the same team was horrible (which is impressive with such a nice concept for a show).

[Mat001]

Two major factors that I think are holding WB back from stepping into Cinematic Animation is money and a dedicated studio. I don't think that WB has a studio that is dedicated to animation like Sony Animation, DreamWorks Animation, Walt Disney Animation and Pixar is.

Warner Brothers animation was primarily the Looney Toons and Merrie Melodies from the 20's through the 60's, at which point the studio shut down the division. It was opened up again in the 80's, to produce new and original material. Unfortunately, only one film did well and that was "Space Jam", largely because of Michael Jordan who was in the middle of his second NBA run and coming off a championship season. The studio was shut down after the failure of "Looney Toons: Back In Action". It's also why Marvel has never attempted to go into a feature film division with their characters in animated form. And until Disney sees a viable reason to do a feature length film of "The Avengers" or some other property, it ain't going to happen.

[Flashpoint]

That's what people said about Snow White and the Seven Dwarves and it went on to be the highest grossing film of it's time and was critically acclaimed.

It wouldn't hurt to try. Like Marvel tried with Iron Man. Look at how well that turned out.

In this day and age, it is extremely risky and incredibly difficult to set up and launch a successful animation studio that makes box office hits. Fox tried to do that in the Nineties and got badly burned with expensive failures like "Anastasia," among others. What Disney did is not easy to duplicate and it is very foolish to jump to the conclusion that if Disney did it, anyone can if they try hard enough.

Again, look at Fox's attempts to launch an animated studio in the Nineties after Disney's monstrous success with multiple films all in a row ("The Little Mermaid," "Beauty And The Beast," "Aladdin," "The Lion King," etc). I've met one or two people who worked for Fox Animation and despite the best intentions and Herculean efforts, it bombed and many good people lost their jobs--including several talented budding animators who left the field for good after the division was shut down.

Just as with comic book creators, there are way more people who want to work in animation than there are jobs to fill. I'd rather WB didn't try to do what many others have tried and failed to do over the years. Just ask Don Bluth about that.

[Lee-Sensei]

In this day and age, it is extremely risky and incredibly difficult to set up and launch a successful animation studio that makes box office hits. Fox tried to do that in the Nineties and got badly burned with expensive failures like "Anastasia," among others. What Disney did is not easy to duplicate and it is very foolish to jump to the conclusion that if Disney did it, anyone can if they try hard enough.

Again, look at Fox's attempts to launch an animated studio in the Nineties after Disney's monstrous success with multiple films all in a row ("The Little Mermaid," "Beauty And The Beast," "Aladdin," "The Lion King," etc). I've met one or two people who worked for Fox Animation and despite the best intentions and Herculean efforts, it bombed and many good people lost their jobs--including several talented budding animators who left the field for good after the division was shut down.

Just as with comic book creators, there are way more people who want to work in animation than there are jobs to fill. I'd rather WB didn't try to do what many others have tried and failed to do over the years. Just ask Don Bluth about that.

Yeah, I know. But it was even harder in the 30's before anyone had done it (or at least done it successfully). Critics called it 'Disney's Folly' and said that it would bankrupt his company. His wife and brother tried to talk him out of it. It became the highest grossing film of it's time and was critically acclaimed.

Warner Brothers is one of the worlds largest media conglomerates. It wouldn't hurt to try.

That's the difference between DC and Marvel. Marvel's willing to take chances. Like with Iron Man. Look at how well that turned out. Compare to DC who mostly stick to Batman and Superman. Marvels taking a chance with the Avengers, and judging by the trailers it's going to be awesome.

[carabas]

That's the difference between DC and Marvel. Marvel's willing to take chances. Like with Iron Man. Look at how well that turned out. Compare to DC who mostly stick to Batman and Superman. Marvels taking a chance with the Avengers...

How exactly is making a film with the biggest character they still have the rights to "taking a chance"? Especially after these characters have proven to be profitable on their own?

Seriously, the biggest risk they're taking is putting the Hulk in it.

[NamorsTrident]

That's the difference between DC and Marvel. Marvel's willing to take chances. Like with Iron Man. Look at how well that turned out. Compare to DC who mostly stick to Batman and Superman. Marvels taking a chance with the Avengers, and judging by the trailers it's going to be awesome.

I Agree but I also think Marvel believes in their characters more. Almost like they have a better understanding on who they are and how to make them work in almost any setting while still remaining true to who they are. In the end it makes it easy for them to take the risk on their characters, cause with that understanding and love how can they loose.

[comicboy53]

How exactly is making a film with the biggest character they still have the rights to "taking a chance"? Especially after these characters have proven to be profitable on their own?

Seriously, the biggest risk they're taking is putting the Hulk in it.

That's a good point but Iron man wasn't exactly as popular as he is now. Before Marvel knew Iron man would be successful they still knew they wanted to make a cinematic universe. It could have been hit or miss but Marvel took the risk especially since they weren't backed by a Major media conglomerate and had to get a loan to start their films.

[carabas]

You're selling Iron Man short.
Even before the movie his visibility got a massive boost from Civil War and the fallout from that.

As a debut film, a film that's more pure sci-fi than superheroes, like Captain America or Thor, was the safest bet to reach not the comics crowd but the mainstream audience.

And those three, plus the Hulk, really are Marvel's biggest properties until such time they regain control of the X-Men and Spider-Man. Which isn't likely to happen any time soon, if ever.