Where would the first brick be laid in a DC Movieverse?

[PympMyQuinjet]

The most appropriate place would be Man of Steel obviously. I feel it's only natural for Superman to be the start of the whole thing.

Having said that, I very much adopt the Nolan doctrine (and apparently Snyder too) that each superhero should occupy their own universe. It's great that it works for Marvel, but I'd still very much prefer that there is no cinematic universe; at lease not yet. I'd want Superman to stand on his own and to see Snyder and Cavill build a great Superman series like Nolan, Goyer and Bale did. Ditto for any other creative teams out there who will tackle other projects.

I think this is actually how the studio is going about their superhero franchises. Every time I've heard interviewers mention the success of the Marvel films to any Warners/DC executives, they've replied that their characters are "bigger" and able to sustain themselves on their own.

Well, you can say that DC, but it only works when you have filmmakers who have a good story to work with. That is why the recent Batman movies have been amazing and Green Lantern was...well, not.

[toddx77]

I agree with this. I think the Iron Man movies got watered down because of putting it with Avengers.

What do you mean by watered down? Like they were limited in what they could do?

[a13506]

A Aquaman movie could be the first step into a eventual JLA(mentioning Superman). Later a Flash movie(with a minor appearance of Batman), and A Wonder Woman movie(ending with a GL presence).

[Flashpoint]

This cracks me up because people have been saying that the movie-going audience would get tired of superhero movies for years now. I guess if they say it often enough, someday they might be right.

Ok, so even if/when Avengers 2 comes out, how many superhero teamups would that make? Two?

Superman + Batman in the same movie - that alone will put butts in seats. Add in some others, make it a good movie, and I think they have a really good chance at a nice success.

Marvel didn't give up on Iron Man, Thor, Captain America and gang just because Nolan's The Dark Knight made more, right? But, I guess, according to you, every movie studio should close up shop because Avengers set opening weekend records? And what's Marvel going to do after Avengers 2 when everyone is tired of the supehero?

Sorry, but your zero sum game don't work here.

Thank you.

It's getting old. Since Blade shattered entertainment industry expectations in 1998 by hitting #1 at the box office and making a big, fat profit, melodramatic fans have been ferociously trying to predict that "The sky is falling, the sky is falling! The superhero movie trend is OVER!!"

Blade was the first crack in the dam that had held back superhero movies from taking over for decades. Here we are approaching the 15th Anniversary of that breakout hit movie and now Avengers has shattered yet another box office record.

The superhero movie craze is far, far, FAR from over.

[Flashpoint]

Exactly. There's no game. People liked the Avengers and they are interested in seing a Justice League movie.

No doubt about it. You're right. People loved the Avengers and they will be just as enthusiastic *if* WB makes a good Justice League movie. Hell, moviegoers clearly love good superhero movies in general. The problem isn't that the "trend" is ending; it's obviously not when good superhero movies can pull in over $200 million in 3 days. The problem is WB executives who keep making more bad decisions than good ones.

[NotSuper]

Hercules: In the wonder woman comics he is a villain. He fits the "battle hungry god's son" thing that thor had before his character developement. Hercules not only never gets that developement and in fact becomes a worse, more vindictive man as a result of what happens to him.

Actually, he's not a villain. Perez had him become an ally of the Amazons after Wonder Woman freed him. There were FAILED attempts to turn him into a villain under Byrne and then Heinberg, but no one followed these and Herc was back to being a hero in his last pre-Flashpoint appearance: the very good Wonder Girl mini by J. Torres. He was even listed as "Hero" in his alignment in the DC Encyclopedia.

[NotSuper]

GL is so not over and could come back stronger than ever with the right script and the right director.

Only if they reboot it, which is the only way we're going to get another GL movie (unless DC is suicidal). Mark my words.

They could reboot it Hulk-style, without an origin story but still a new take with no connection to the original. All they'd have to do is have an opening scene of Hal getting the ring from Abin, then an opening credit montage with a voice-over and images telling audiences about the Corps and their history from the Guardians, then you have a "five years later" text and open the movie from there.

[An Ear In The Fireplace]

With Green Lantern there's no need for a reboot. If they don't want to use Ryan Reynolds, they just have to have a different character continuing the legacy--such as John Stewart, Guy Gardner, or Kyle Rayner. But hopefully the same actors continue on in the rest of the GLC.

Since I'd prefer a Justice League movie first--I say that Ryan Reynolds should be GL in that one. Presumably his multi-pic deal could include a JLA movie. Maybe even that movie could provide the transition to a new ring wielder.

[NotSuper]

With Green Lantern there's no need for a reboot. If they don't want to use Ryan Reynolds, they just have to have a different character continuing the legacy--such as John Stewart, Guy Gardner, or Kyle Rayner. But hopefully the same actors continue on in the rest of the GLC.

There is the need for a reboot, and changing the lead will do NOTHING to fix that. Not many people are invested in that narrative and it's an uphill battle to convince people to invest themselves in the same narrative (despite superficial changes) when they clearly didn't like it. It's better not to build on such a shaky foundation. WB knows this and won't do a direct sequel to the movie. If they did, it would fail just as the original did.

As I've said, the best bet is to do a Hulk-style reboot instead of an origin film. But just like that movie, it's also important to let people know that this isn't the same character or universe.

[BFF]

Superman + Batman in the same movie - that alone will put butts in seats. Add in some others, make it a good movie, and I think they have a really good chance at a nice success.

It depends on what you mean by "nice success."

Avengers was a movie that I enjoyed, made $200M its first weekend, has an 8.8 rating on IMDB, and is 93% on Rotten Tomatoes.

A JL movie would be one that I didn't enjoy, makes about $60 million opening weekend, has a 6.7 rating on IMDB, and a 49% on Rotten Tomatoes.

I'd rather no JL movie be made than have to deal with that reality.

[americanwonder]

Must be nice to see the future. ;)

By "nice success," I simply mean it doesn't have to break Avengers' records to be very profitable.

[hugh45]

Thank you.

It's getting old. Since Blade shattered entertainment industry expectations in 1998 by hitting #1 at the box office and making a big, fat profit, melodramatic fans have been ferociously trying to predict that "The sky is falling, the sky is falling! The superhero movie trend is OVER!!"

Blade was the first crack in the dam that had held back superhero movies from taking over for decades. Here we are approaching the 15th Anniversary of that breakout hit movie and now Avengers has shattered yet another box office record.

The superhero movie craze is far, far, FAR from over.

Yes Yes and Yes. I always felt that Superheroes (DC/Marvel),if done correctly like Batman/Avengers, are lot more popular than Star Wars;Star Trek;etc. Superheroes in are modern culture are our 'New Gods' of mythology. Almost everyone when they were kids dreamed of being able to fly,lift a car over our heads,etc.

[HeroxMatt2.0]

Back OT, what about the way Smallville approached building up there League?

At the end of the first Flash episode, the character says he'll look for others like them, and build up a team. A few throwaway lines like that in a movie, and as mentioned before, the Superman panel could work - and I really liked Buried Alien's idea of having them all have the same ending. Only thing with the same ending is, they have to try and make it clear through advertising that this is all happening in the same universe. So they could put "From the Producers of 'Man of Steel'," or whatever.

And have Green Lantern 2 be the start of GL's involvement with the Justice League. The first Green Lantern movie can be his prologue, or half-ignored like they did with "The Hulk" and "The Incredible Hulk".

[Flashpoint]

Back OT, what about the way Smallville approached building up there League?

At the end of the first Flash episode, the character says he'll look for others like them, and build up a team. A few throwaway lines like that in a movie, and as mentioned before, the Superman panel could work - and I really liked Buried Alien's idea of having them all have the same ending. Only thing with the same ending is, they have to try and make it clear through advertising that this is all happening in the same universe. So they could put "From the Producers of 'Man of Steel'," or whatever.

And have Green Lantern 2 be the start of GL's involvement with the Justice League. The first Green Lantern movie can be his prologue, or half-ignored like they did with "The Hulk" and "The Incredible Hulk".

Agreed and Amen. Several CBR posters have suggested the exact same strategy numerous times on this thread and others here. One Hulk movie failing didn't mean the end of Hulk forever. One GL movie doesn't mean the end of GL movies, either. And I think this strategy is the best one to follow by far.

[An Ear In The Fireplace]

I think some of the movie execs are too easily scared silly by these "failures." In the first place they're not really failures. I liked Superman Returns, Green Lantern, and John Carter. All of these movies made a lot of money, they just didn't make enough money to justify their bloated budgets. And I don't know what they spent all that money on (am I too jaded if I suspect that some of that money is used for illicit purposes?), but it didn't seem to help the movies. All of those "failed" movies did a poor job of promotion--getting the bums in the seats, which would have helped the box office, if it had been done right. The other problem with SR and GL was editing. In SR, even though I liked the movie, I could feel that the pace was very slow. With GL, they totally recut the movie against the plot structure that the director intended--which is a stupid way to construct a movie--it's better for the director to know the structure going in, so he can shoot scenes to fit that.

Just because these movies underperformed, the suits shouldn't lose their nerve. The Avengers and The Dark Knight show that there's a pay-off in going forward, playing the cards you've got. Think what might have happened if WB had bailed on Nolan after Batman Begins failed to make the kind of money they were hoping for. They would have gone through several more treatments, looking at different directors, more casting choices. Which would have taken years. Instead, they put their faith in Nolan for the next movie and he delivered.

It's like what happened with Star Trek the Motion Picture. That was not the movie everyone was hoping for. I think it failed for some of the same reasons Superman Returns failed. The movie was slow moving and overly reverential and ponderous and nostalgic for a bygone product--their hearts were in the right place but the movie failed to connect with its audience. However, they didn't give up on Star Trek. They regrouped, got a good script and a good director, stuck with the same cast and went forward producing one of the best Star Trek movies of all time (some might say the best one ever).