Has Warners Waited Too Long To Exploit DC’s Movie Potential?

So many people forget some “DC” movies that, while they may not have made as much money as Iron Man, are certainly MUCH BETTER movies: A History of Violence and Road to Perdition.

And often leave off the string of duds that Marvel has had: Hulk, FF 1 & 2, X-3, both Punisher movies, and Ghost Rider

DC should go the other route and do theatrically relesed movies with a shared univers but go the animated route. The success of Justice League has proven they can do it.

I skipped 'V for Vendetta' because it just didn't seem like the source material, to me. However, I do feel that it would be better for films to stop thinking in terms of franchising every movie, and getting back to some genuine great stand-alones, anyway. I remember a few years ago one studio did ten films for $10million (each film had that as their budget), and each was only really supposed to be a single film. The first was 'Jeepers Creepers', and whilst the others didn't do as well (so much so that I cannot name one of them) it did suggest that funding smaller projects of this kind could be beneficial. Take John Constantine for example – hire someone like Ian Hart, let him play Constantine as a scouser, and have a modest budget with a young, hungry indie director in the UK to make a low budget, atmospheric horror. If it fails, you haven't spent too much on it, anyway. If it succeeds because of the connection to DC and Alan Moore, then it could potentially make far, far more profit than 'Constantine' did. One of the things studios need to learn is that sometimes extravegance and spectacle can be their own downfall. Of course, this model would never work for something like 'The Hulk', but there are a lot of characters that could benefit in this way.

Do they really need to make anymore sh*tty superhero movies? Just reading about Green Lantern made me want to throw. DC relies to heavily on Warner Brothers; Marvel makes their own stuff now and the difference is definitely noticeable.

We have seen Batman in grey and black tights in that awesome fan movie where he fought The Joker, an alien, and then a predator, and you know what, it was awesome! Plus, haven't the organic webshooters been dropped? I had an issue with them as the webshooters Peter made helped hammer home the idea that Peter was actually really smart. But a bigger issue with Raimi's 'Spider-Man' films was that they were too serious – there weren't any witty one-liners by Spider-Man that are a big part of the character.

However, fandom isn't fickle – many fans have an opinion and stick with it, and some change their mind when they see the film, as is there right. If they continually changed back and forth then I might agree with you on that, but I have seen more consistent opinions from comic fans for good or ill than I have seen from most other people re: lots of other things. My mother changes her mind about how the front room is decorated every year – now that is fickle (and hard on my Dad, who has to redecorate it!).

However, I agree that the movies aren't the comics. They can never be, and having spent a good part of my academic career studying how films adapt comics I am extemely interested in the ways in which each film approaches the means of adaptation because long-form serialised media being adapted for short-form, one-off media presents so many challenges you don't usually see in adapting finite novels, or short, or formulaic television series. However, so long as we get films like 'Let the Right One In', 'In the Loop' or 'Oldboy', Hollywood can do whatever it likes, and fanboys can have whatever opinion they like for me. It always leads to an interesting perspective on the process of adaptation.

I'll probably get raked over the coals for this, but while that fan movie was entertaining at the time, it wasn't THAT great. While the Batman in the movie looked like Batman, from what little I could see, he was just a musclebound guy in tights. There was no character there. If all it took was a burly guy to play a superhero, we'd have the pro wrestlers people keep clamoring for (don't get me started on the crazy “Triple H as Thor” thread). The late Andrew Koenig as The Joker was far more interesting than the guy playing Batman. Honestly, once you get past the “huh, interesting,” factor of Batman looking like he does in the comics, there's nothing there but a brawl in an alley.

Yeah, Howard, not Fischer! Thanks!

“Batman 3 may flop though.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Honestly, dude? Look, I don't think anyone's going to expect #3 to make as much money as TDK did. That was lightning in a bottle. But the anticipation will be extremely high, and it will make tons of money. Hell, even the god-awful Spidey 3 and X3 made big bucks. Do you honestly think a Nolan Batman movie could be as bad as those two movies I just mentioned. Hell no.

“Batman 2 was the apotheosis of what Chris Nolan was aiming for since the first movie and therefore has no where left to go.”

Explain this statement. Batman Begins re-booted and re-established Batman. He smacked down Gotham's underworld, and the mob turned to man they clearly didn't understand. As Alfred put it in TDK, after Batman spat in the mob's face “things were always going to get worse before they get better.” Nolan raised the bar with TDK, and I can't wait to see where he takes things in the 3rd movie.

How can you seeay there's “nowhere to go”? TDK was a fantastic middle chapter (assuming it turns out to be a trilogy). It left things hanging as far Gotham being torn apart by Joker's chaos, and Batman's willingness to be the villain in order to help save things. No doubt a new threat will emerge in #3, and we'll see how Batman can redeem himself in the public's view, and still save Gotham, while the law is gunning for him.

“Besides, after the creatively disappointing “Inception” people may just become completely fed up with what Nolan is puttin' down”

The “disappointing” Inception that scored 87% on Rotten Tomatoes?

People sure seem to like it enough, Inception having been #1 for several weeks, and one of only two films this year to land in the top 10 for 10 or more weeks (and counting). He'll end up having the 2nd biggest film of the year (behind only Toy Story 3), and that's without having Batman in it. I'd say the public is FAR from “fed up with what Nolan is puttin' down.” Now if you were to say “M. Night Shyamalan,” then you'd be making sense.

I don't think so. Warner has a good track record with super-hero movies. If they are well-written, with high production values, and a strong cast, then I think they can compete with, if not surpass, Marvel's line of movies.

Got to agree. I am amazed that DC can't seem to get Superman launched! It seems like a total no-brainer. Superman is such an iconic character but DC is so in love with the origin tale and Lex Luthor and Lois Lane that they can't get past them to do a follow-up movie and so much always reboot every 20 years — when they think people have forgotten the previous movie. Hey, there's 20,000 Superman comics out there and while 90% of them are about the origin, Lex Luthor and Lois Lane, that still leaves 2,000 other plots and characters!

You've clearly never made a film that short, so I will forgive you what you have said. However, the characterisation was clearly there in the few moments that Batman had – such as his no-nonsense approach to The Joker – and the final shot of Batman preparing to square up against a bunch of Predators was awesome – it says so much about the character that you'd believe he could possibly win. What you mean is that the characterisation wasn't there on the level you would associate with other, more long forms of media. Clearly, you can't judge them by the same yardstick. Making short films is difficult enough as it is – if you have five minutes, then that is a minute for each of your traditional five-point narrative structure – so you have to fit more in visually to make up for the lack of time/nuance/dialogue. Therefore, musclebound guy in traditional Batman costume, no-nonsense demeanour, and the ability to kick extraterrestrial @$$ tell you everything you needed to know in that short film.

“The same goes for the Superman movie in development. CLEARLY, only Grant Morrison should be designing and writing that movie. But no, Warner Bros are a bunch of cowards and WOULD NEVER DO ANYTHING THAT SMART.”

- Dwayne McDuffie is adapting 'All-Star Superman' for the animation division, so, yes, I completely agree that WB would never let Grant Morrison's work inform any representation of Superman… Oh, and I know 80% of online text is misunderstood, so let me state for the record: I was being sarcastic.

“A Wonder Woman movie MAY work – but only if Joss Whedon is at the helm.”

- Yes, as he is the only writer or director to write strong female characters. (Again, sarcasm!) Seriously, though, what about Ridley Scott or James Cameron? Given they directed two films with kick ass heroines named Ellen Ripley and Sarah Conner?

“Aquaman? Bitch, please (The very worst meaning of that phrase)”

- WTF? A King returning to fabled Atlantis to reclaim his throne? An underwater city filled with magic and menace? The only reason Aquaman has a bad rep' is because other writers tend to have failed in capturing what could be a kick ass fantasy story.

“Sandman as an HBO Series: YES”

- Yes, lets ignore the fact that one location – The Dreaming – is a massive special effect that a television show budget cannot do justice with its limited budgets, and that the property is the least commercial around given that it is an anthology series that marginalizes its recurring cast for a large portion of the story, and that HBO would probably have to pay a small fortune to license the rights with no guarantee of a return, and this is… what is the opposite of a slam dunk? Crashing to the floor and facepalming as you land?

“Hellblazer as an HBO Series: YES”

- Might I suggest a partnership with a British indie production team and doing it as a genuinely scary one off. Maybe even model the story around something like 'The Wicker Man' – isolated locations, ancient mythology, and a Scouse John Constantine, perhaps played by Ian Hart, or one of the other many fine actors starring in kitchen sink, council estate dramas in the UK.

“The New Gods Anime series of feature films: If done by Grant Morrison, then, yes, Absolutely.”

- Why would Grant Morrison want to do this when his own work – especially 'We3', which is still in the pipeline at Dreamworks – is likely to provide him more satisfaction and more also with more money? Also, what you're saying doesn't add up – Grant Morrison is a comic book writer, primarily, Anime is Japanese, and the New Gods are owned by WBs, aren't they? Besides, if you are so eager for Morrison to move to moving pictures, 'Bonnyroad' is out later this year, all written by him, and starring Stephen Fry, and dealing with the same myths and poetry that helped inspire 'Seven Soldiers'.

“Fables as a TV series could work”

- It is already in development. It was named as being in development at the same time as 'The Walking Dead', so it could air this time next year. Or it might not get picked up. Personally, I wouldn't much care if it did or it didn't. It's the comics I love.

“Global Frequency: as an HBO Series designed and run by Warren Ellis would definitely work.”

- There was already a pilot, which was pretty good, and starred Michelle Forbes as Miranda Zero. It didn't get picked up, which was a small blessing really, as it would be unlikely to be too “Global” given budgetary restrictions, and if it isn't global, then it is just 'Fringe' without a clear over-arcing narrative. And, really, why would HBO pick up something that failed to get picked up for lesser channels, that they would have to license for a decent amount, and that, given that Ellis has no pedigree as a TV producer, could just as easily come off as the next wacky, low-budget SyFy show?

“But you see, Hollywood Executives are PROFOUNDLY STUPID PEOPLE and they don't think like us. Therefore, they would NEVER deign to even think of doing series or movies like these.”

- Most of the things you suggested were unreasonable, uneconomical, or are already happening in one form or another, or have already happened. Your argument seems solely based on the fact that you think you are smarter than every person at DC/WBs. Now, I hate to have to break it to you, but you clearly aren't.

Are there too many cop movies? Too many sci-fis? Too many cowboys?

There's plenty of room for everybody.

There never was a question that Superman Returns was a sequel: from the music and style of the credits, to the press cycle in which Singer called this “the true Superman III,” that was intended to revitalize an existing franchise that is well thought of rather than the kitchen sink replacement that Batman keeps suffering.

But the comics are the problem.

Comics are a problem because “Crisis On Infinite Earths” wiped out the man in Superman and the mad scientiest in Lex Luthor, switching them to the boy scout Superman vs evil corporate genius. And that's the version we get in the cartoons. That's the version we get in Smallville.

And I challenge ANYONE who thinks Superman Returns pitiful to not say that they love the cartoons and the modern TV incarnation. Because that's the contradiction weakening the film, not Kate Bosworth's weak performance.

Batman, incidentally, was EXACT to the comics' tone when Adam West did it. Tim Burton started this whole bullshit about Batman being dark from the beginning (he wasn't — it was Year One he was referring to, and Dark Knight), and all Nolan is doing is going back and saying he can do it without the stylized sets. And that's something you can track against existing products.

I wrote my graduate thesis on the adaptation on comic-to-film in 2000 just as X-Men was released. In those days, the idea of Marvel vs DC never entered into it. The idea was IF it could be done at a level that was acceptable to general audiences, the way Batman had versus Captain America, The Shadow, etc.

Dick Tracy is the most successful adaptation of a comic book into film. Period. But it was a commercial flop as a film because audiences didn't accept it.

And hindsight is a wonderful thing too. John Lasseter recently pointed out how Tron and Blade Runner are beloved now, but both he and Ridley Scott were considered to have sacrificed their careers to make those bombs back in the day.

Honestly, WB thinks Nolan's third Batman will make more money than Dark Knight. And so do the critics, who can't wait to see if it was Ledger's death or something more. As for where it goes, that's fucking obvious for anyone who's read the issues it's based on — more villains. Batman: Begins is Year One, where Gotham loses its thugs for the freaks.

Rotten Tomatoes is not a valid argument. Nor, really, is box office. Because, by the same token, Transformers 2 was better loved than Star Trek, but it's a lot harder to find people who think fondly of Transformers 2 these days the way they do Star Trek. TIME tells whether it was successful or not.

Let us not forget that there were critics slammed for saying that the DVD of Dark Knight made them reconsider their praise and be more realistic. But it's the truth. Time changes opinions.

Exactly… I didn't like the Ang Lee/Eric Bana Hulk movie at all, but the one starring Ed Norton was really good. I'm sorry we probably won't see any kind of sequel to that one, and I'm also sorry Norton won't even be involved with The Avengers either. Not as good as the first Iron Man, and perhaps not even as good as the first two Spideys or X2, but that's pretty lofty company. I think it's at least as good as the first X-Men movie, and I enjoyed it a lot more than I did Iron Man 2.

But Punisher? Ugh… They should probably just give up on that character.

“Honestly, WB thinks Nolan's third Batman will make more money than Dark Knight. And so do the critics, who can't wait to see if it was Ledger's death or something more.”

Well, I'm sure they HOPE it'll make more, but it's unrealistic to think it will. Joker's popularity, and Ledger's amazing performance (and sure, his death too) were certainly part of what made TDK the must-see movie it was. It had more going for it than just, and it would've been a hit without that I think, but as I said earlier that was lightning in a bottle. The third installment will easily surpass Batman Begins, but will fall short of TDK. It'll still be a big hit, most likely, just unlikely it'll be the monster TDK was.

“As for where it goes, that's fucking obvious for anyone who's read the issues it's based on — more villains. Batman: Begins is Year One, where Gotham loses its thugs for the freaks.”

I'm well aware of Year One. I have the original issues. It doesn't mean that's what Nolan will do though. You don't know for certain, and neither do I. We don't even know for certain which villain or villains he'll choose. My point is that the ending, and Batman willingly taking on the part of “villain” was a great way to end the movie and leave things hanging.

“Rotten Tomatoes is not a valid argument. Nor, really, is box office.”

I need to base an argument on SOMETHING, don't I? Using RT and box office is shorthand to respond to a guy's really dumb, unfounded statement that Inception was somehow “disappointing” and that people are “fed up” with Noland. Again, the RT percentage is a quick, easy to understand way to disprove his dopey rants. 87% shows that most critics, at least the ones on that site, really liked the movie. And box office? Well, c'mon… When Inception has taken in over $285 million and has been in the top 10 for the last 10 weeks (four of them at #1) it's safe to say that the public not only isn't disappointed, but certainly isn't “fed up” with Nolan. I'd say that my using some actual FACTS in my response makes for a better argument than the first guy's!

“Because, by the same token, Transformers 2 was better loved than Star Trek,”

Not critically though… Again, using RT shorthand, the critics universally loved Trek and mostly loathed Transformers. I can't explain the stupidity of people going to see Transformers, but it's not like Trek did poorly at the box office either.

“TIME tells whether it was successful or not.”

There's truth in that, but when TDK becomes the second (now third) biggest performer ever, had near universal acclaim, and nabbed an Oscar for Ledger's work (I think he'd have won even if he hadn't died, or at least been nominated), that's a pretty good start for going down in history. Even now, TDK is well ahead of everything else in this poll (I actually voted for Batman Begins, just because I think it's underappreciated). It's a well-loved movie, sold huge on DVD and Blu too, many critics were honestly surprised it didn't get a Best Picture nod. If you don't like it, that's fine. The public has spoken though, and I think it's a movie that will endure. Certainly more than, oh, the Fantastic Four movies will. For example. It transcended the label “comic book movie” and became an event movie even for people who don't normally care about comic book characters.

“Let us not forget that there were critics slammed for saying that the DVD of Dark Knight made them reconsider their praise and be more realistic. But it's the truth. Time changes opinions.”

Which critics, and where? I'm not doubting you, but offer up some examples. It's easy for fatigue to set in over time, and when you've seen something more than once it becomes easy to spot holes or things to criticize. I never said TDK was perfect. I don't that any movie is. It's just damned good. Even if a few critics have taken their praise down a couple notches it's not like TDK is going to suddenly be seen as a bad movie. I mean, I loved the original Star Trek TV show. Decades later, however, I find them mostly very difficult to watch. Does that mean the show is no longer a classic? Of course not. Again, I think the critics and public have spoken. At the very least, Nolan's films, I predict, will age far better than Burton's (or Schumacher's) Batman films will.

Besides, based on what you said above, if a large grouping of critics on RT isn't a valid argument then how is a few critics reconsidering the movie later, on DVD, any more valid?