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

[Jim Thompson]

That would be an interesting starting point...Not sure if it could work though with mainstream audiences. This is WB's current problem they have to figure out a way to include their iconic characters Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash & Green Lantern all in one movie and a shared universe in a way that doesn't come off as it's ripping off Marvel/Avengers and in a way that is unique and grabs the average movie goers attention.

Too late, I think. Now it'll just be how the produce a variation on a theme, in all likelihood.

[SpideyCzar]

They did the same thing in 2008. They played Dark Knight's trailer in the Iron Man movie, and I remember that's where everyone got hyped for DK.

The hype began to build with all the free press the movie got from Heath Ledger's death. The buzz from his performance kept driving the hype, and the trailer and the film validated the hype and positive buzz from the film. But this is standard practice in Hollywood and theatre chains. Studios suggest what trailers to attach to certain movies, but the decision ultimately comes down to the theater itself. Romantic comedies usually have more romance trailers attached than action movies, action films have similiar trailers attached, so it's all but common sense to have comic book films trailers attached to each other.

[SpideyCzar]

DC dominates the animation realm.

Marvel has had significantly better luck with their live action flicks.

Yes, with Superman & Batman direct home releases...but home video releases aren't even in the same real as theatrical releases when it comes to profits.

And I don't think you can call the type of box office numbers that two Iron man films, Thor & Captain America have done luck.

[Ari Gold]

And I don't think you can call the type of box office numbers that two Iron man films, Thor & Captain America have done luck.

Haven't kept up with all the posts, but curious as for your opinion on what DC is doing wrong with their super-hero films and what they could do better.

Are the characters easier to translate? Like at least Iron Man and Captain America are for the most part "real" people, without huge layers of supernatural or superheroic powers. Is that something that translates better to the larger movie-going audience? Is that way to over-simplified since movies like Spider-Man & X-Men do well while films like Daredevil & Elektra do not?
If you had the opportunity to plan out DC's course through movies what would you like to see?

[carabas]

Well, if they wanted to take a stab at that, perhaps the first movie out of the gate ought to be a variant translation of FlashPoint, a movie starring the Flash where he alters history. Then DC could "build" their movie-verse forward from that point.

Wouldn't you have to get both the old Batman, Superman... into the same film, and on top of that introduce the new versions as well? So you'd hav to have cast most of your post-Flashpoint DCU while shooting it.

[Jim Thompson]

Wouldn't you have to get both the old Batman, Superman... into the same film, and on top of that introduce the new versions as well? So you'd hav to have cast most of your post-Flashpoint DCU while shooting it.

Be why I said a variant of FlashPoint. It could be scripted and shot in such a way that Flash really is the focal point of the film, with Zoom being there, too. But if he managed to alter time, he could just have easily created a world where there were no superheroes, and what he's trying to do is get the world he knew back.

[SpideyCzar]

Haven't kept up with all the posts, but curious as for your opinion on what DC is doing wrong with their super-hero films and what they could do better.

Are the characters easier to translate? Like at least Iron Man and Captain America are for the most part "real" people, without huge layers of supernatural or superheroic powers. Is that something that translates better to the larger movie-going audience? Is that way to over-simplified since movies like Spider-Man & X-Men do well while films like Daredevil & Elektra do not?
If you had the opportunity to plan out DC's course through movies what would you like to see?

Hmmm if I had that answer I wouldn't be working my day job analyzing Box Office data and running test screenings for the Studios...

It's true, I think the Marvel characters are easier to translate mostly because, of their relatability and more real qualities. Iron Man was a jerk billionaire, but he saw the error of his way and was humble, movie goers love stories of redemption. Captain America was centered around WW II, an event that is still looked at as a event that changed America in a super power politically, it also had heart and transformed a weakling into a super soldier, something everyone has dreamed about sometime in their life. Thor, I thought was one of the toughest to adapt to the screen, but they made it work by humbling an arrogant warrior. But can we honestly say Superman is harder to translate to a movie than Thor was, yet Marvel Studios made it work. So there are ways to make fantastically powerful characters relatable, but are you going to humble Superman or Wonder Woman? Nope, those are iconic characters that everyone knows. Batman has always been easy to translate onto film as he's the most "Real" DC character. No super powers, not an alien, not a Amazonian Princess or a space cop with a magic wishing ring.

DC/WB has to do what they did with Batman Begins, find a up and coming director who's vision is in line with the character or characters. When Batman Begins was released it wasn't a huge success, it was profitable, but it was far from a huge hit. But it was well received, and had legs as it did quite well on home video.

As I've stated before WB/DC need a plan, maybe start off with a Superman/Batman film as this will do a few things it'll show the world's two most recognizable comic characters fighting side by side, and it'll introduce a shared universe of DC comics. With whatever threat you choose to put these two characters against (Lex Luthor, Brainiac, Joker, etc etc) within the confines of the movie they can make references to Flash, Green Lantern, Aquaman, or even Wonder Woman. The tone of this film could even be where these two iconic characters don't trust each other or the other super powered characters they share a world with. It's a classic buddy cop movie scenario where they are opposites but work well together.

Maybe at the end of the movie you could have Green Lantern or Flash show up just as Superman & Batman are going to part ways and ask them for their help with a bigger problem that could lead into a Justice League movie. If WB choose to go this route it easily seperates their franchise from the Marvel Studios franchise, instead of 5 movies leading up to a team up movie they do it in 1 movie featuring two of the most recognizable comic characters on the planet. Use it as a launching pad for a Justice League movie then if done well could reboot the GL franchise and launch a Wonder Woman & Flash film.

There is plenty of room for characters who aren't "real" for movie goers as Avatar, Star Wars & Lord of the Rings clearly show audiences have a taste for that. The hurdle for WB/DCE is too make those ultra powerful characters relatable, make the audiences care about them and root for them. Something they failed to do in GL, as quite a few people thought the main character was unlikable.

Does a Superman/Batman movie diversify the DC brand to movie goers? No, but it is a safe bet for Wb after failing with trying to launch a GL franchise. Through their most profitbale and successful characters I think they could launch a JL movie and expose more of their library of characters through ther top 2 characters. With all this said we have no idea how good or bad a Man of Steel movie will be, or if WB plans on exploring a shared Universe with that film. I think as fans of comics and cinema we all can agree the potential for cool DC movies is right there, WB just needs to find the right creative talent to translate the character to the big screen.

Just how I see it.

[BrotherUnitNo_4]

Haven't kept up with all the posts, but curious as for your opinion on what DC is doing wrong with their super-hero films and what they could do better.

Are the characters easier to translate? Like at least Iron Man and Captain America are for the most part "real" people, without huge layers of supernatural or superheroic powers. Is that something that translates better to the larger movie-going audience? Is that way to over-simplified since movies like Spider-Man & X-Men do well while films like Daredevil & Elektra do not?
If you had the opportunity to plan out DC's course through movies what would you like to see?

DC characters are no more difficult to translate to the big screen than Marvel characters. It's just a matter of finding the core of the characters and building around that.

I think I'd also be interested in seeing them trying to make animated films from some of their properties. That way you can throw the question of "does this look real enough" out of the window and just focus on "how awesome can we make it".

Beyond the big guns - Flash, Aquaman, Wonder Woman - I'd be interested in seeing Doom Patrol, Swamp Thing, Blackhawks, Adam Strange and an animated Metal Men. That's off the top of my head. Of the big guns, I think Aquaman has the chance to have something truly epic and different.

So if it were me, I'd consider maybe one smaller property (self-contained) and one big name a year. There should be two years between a sequel and the preceding film. Try to keep the budget under control for the smaller properties. Focus more on character and less on spectacle. I wouldn't worry too much on building a Justice League film yet, but I also don't think that if they do make one they have to spoon feed every last bit of info about a character to make them viable. It all starts with the core.

EDIT: Oh, and I have to agree with SpideyCzar. Don't be afraid to try up-and-comers who may have more vision to write and direct. Don't worry too much about the big name stars because the film isn't about the star. They're not selling this actor or actress. They're selling the characters.

[Dr. Hurt]

I think whatever plan DC has depends on a lot of factors.

1) What franchises are able to stand on their own before they are introduced in the JL? I mean, would a WW movie do well, or does she need the JL to push her?
2) How far DC wants to go in copying Marvel.

Personally, i'd say screw it and copy Marvel. If a WW can work, then do the origin story, from which we'll also get Trevor and ARGUS. Then we have Superman 1 and new Batman 1, plus a potential Aquaman or Flash movie.

Then Superman/Batman or straight into JL.

[Shurato2099]

Just out of curiosity, what is the status of the Superman copyright battle these days? That may well influence WB's use of that character after MoS.

[blinker]

I liked it as well. I just felt sad that its not a financial success. It broke even, just didn't earn enough to guarantee a sequel.

The GL movie didn't break even. Breaking even is when you make double your budget. GL was nowhere near making double it's budget back when it left all of the movie theaters on earth.

While I did enjoy it (even now I realize it really is flawed), I can admit it was a box office disaster (in terms of profit, it is the least successful Superhero/comic book adaption of all time)

[carabas]

Just out of curiosity, what is the status of the Superman copyright battle these days? That may well influence WB's use of that character after MoS.

It's not a problem, even in the worst case scenario.

[SpideyCzar]

The GL movie didn't break even. Breaking even is when you make double your budget. GL was nowhere near making double it's budget back when it left all of the movie theaters on earth.

While I did enjoy it (even now I realize it really is flawed), I can admit it was a box office disaster (in terms of profit, it is the least successful Superhero/comic book adaption of all time)

Doubling your budget is in regards to turning a profit at the box office. A number of tentpole summer movies normally make profits with different avenues such as licensing, partnerships with fast food tie ins, product placements, action figures, apparell, Blu Ray sales, fees for the paid cable channels to air the film and other cross promotions with other companies. I'm not saying this applies to Green Lantern, I'm just pointing this out as the standard double your budget doesn't always apply to see if a film is profitable or not.

Heck looks at all the cross promotions that Avengers has going for it Dr. Pepper, Norton Anti Virus, just to name a few. So I'm sure with licensing agreements alone the film has made quite a bit for Marvel so far.

[Shurato2099]

It's not a problem, even in the worst case scenario.

Well, that's good to know, although I was also curious as to the status of the thing.

[blinker]

Doubling your budget is in regards to turning a profit at the box office. A number of tentpole summer movies normally make profits with different avenues such as licensing, partnerships with fast food tie ins, product placements, action figures, apparell, Blu Ray sales, fees for the paid cable channels to air the film and other cross promotions with other companies. I'm not saying this applies to Green Lantern, I'm just pointing this out as the standard double your budget doesn't always apply to see if a film is profitable or not.

Heck looks at all the cross promotions that Avengers has going for it Dr. Pepper, Norton Anti Virus, just to name a few. So I'm sure with licensing agreements alone the film has made quite a bit for Marvel so far.

It's a known fact that GL was a disaster, it made 220 million on a 200 million budget. Sales for action figures didn't help they were mostly left on the stand from what I heard. GL opened okay in Blu-Ray DVD/Sales (it sold less copies than Horrible Bosses), but saw a huge drop in it's second weekend, and quickly left the top ten.

In the long run - GL was far from being profitable.