No leadership at WB. Slowing production down on DC Comics Films.

[Alex Dragon]

DC is far better than Marvel at animated stuff and Marvel is better live action. I don't think this changes for a long time. As long as DC has timm they are going to dominate animation.

I think the reason for that is because for the most part Marvel's characters are a bit more rooted in reality and the person behind the mask is more important and interesting. That makes for more interesting characters for actors in live action to play and more dimension for writers to work with. With DC most of their heroes are more fantasy based and the hero is the more important aspect of the character. That makes for better cartoons.

[dupersuper]

Why are people bringing comics into this, jon stewart sucked in the comics, let his planet get blown up and then spent a decade in a wheelchair.

John Stewart was awesome in the comics: specifically the Gerard Jones comics. An overly intellectual introvert always overcompensating for the past. Also, he let Xanshi get blown up, not "his planet"...as he was from Earth that really would've been a bigger deal across the DCU books.

[Vibranium]

we also should remember that WBs focus is not just DC, as opposed to Marvel Studios (which is what their job is, to make adaptations)

if WB dropped DC projects tomorrow, they still have a whole movie studio

[Vakanai]

But it doesn't matter because going back to the original point that started this debate...If they couldn't make a GL movie work/be succesful it's pretty unlikely they could make a FLASH movie that would. GL is a much easier sell for a movie than FLASH. GL has a more exciting origin, more visually impressive powers, more interesting supporting cast, much larger/interesting backdrop/playground, and a more interesting personality (or at least one that makes for a better movie). Yet with all that they couldn't pull off a good movie. The FLASH would be much harder to work with. Not impossible, but harder.

Actually, some of that stuff may help make Flash and easier sell. Part of GL's problem (at least one of many) was they tried to cram to much in. Earth and space, two villains, a whole GL force, the romance angle, etc. Flash has slightly less of that (no space, no Flash Corp...). So you could do a much tighter story that's a little more focused...in theory.
But execs would probably meddle it up badly anyways.

we also should remember that WBs focus is not just DC, as opposed to Marvel Studios (which is what their job is, to make adaptations)

if WB dropped DC projects tomorrow, they still have a whole movie studio

WB should make a DC Studios. Disney's got a few different studios, how come WB won't follow a similar-ish idea and make a new studio or whatever?

[Frank]

No one knew who Iron Man was and that film did big bucks. As to the Flash's enemy in a film, it's obvious that it would be the Reverse Flash. But he's has foes who aren't speedsters and they've been a threat to him.

But Iron Man is a one-man war machine. Something similar had been done with Robocop in the 80s, IM is a Robocop was flies. At least for movies execs and audience it's an idea they can grasp. Flash is a guy with a goofy costume that runs fast.

About Warner, i've always been surprised that they've ever managed to do so well because it's always been a conglomerate wth a bunch of companies at war with one another. The key was they work better when they do their stuff independent from one another. And trying to make them cooperate can be quite a story, that is why DC comics and Warner Bros. have been difficult when it comes down to do business. Warner Bros. killed New Line because they could not control them but it was a mistake because on its own New Line could be a very efficient movie brand. Example being the LOTR franchise venture. But it can only get worse because after AOL bought the whole thing, AOL got bankrupt and the AOL executives left so now it's like there is no big leader, not one big boss to decide.