DC you have more than just two heroes.

[Morgoth]

Marvel has had a bunch of movies now based on their heroes, but from DC all you ever see are Superman and Batman movies, I love them, they're my faves, don't get me wrong, but DC has more Heroes.

Are they ever going to make other DC movies based on their Super Heroes.

I wanna' see a Green Lantern movie, a serious one, none of that Jack Black garbage, I know it's only a rumor but, Black recently said it still might happen which is probably crap, but still, it seems WB doesn't seem to care about DC.

They also need to do a Flash movie and Wonder Woman aswell, as Aquaman.

Lobo would be neat to see on the big screen too. It's time for more.

 

[GL's Light]

Time Warner's focus on Superman and Batman has always been frustrating for us DC fans. The fact is, Marvel's main business strategy is to get their characters into the public eye through feature films, whereas DC is just one part of the huge Time Warner empire, and TW has so many franchise opportunities that they don't see the need to utilize all of their DC characters. Still, they're missing out on potentially lucrative properties. They should do all they can to expand the brand awareness of DC characters across the board.

We do seem closer than ever, though, to getting some greenlights for non-Supes & Bats projects. Wonder Woman, Watchmen, The Flash, and Shazam all have directors attached and will hopefully escape from development hell and onto our screens over the next few years.

 

[CConn]

^ That hit the nail on the head. And let's not forget DC has turned quite a few of its non-superhero comics into movies - V For Vendetta, Constantine, Road to Perdition, etc. - that's something I sorta wish Marvel would've explored by now.

 

[heyjosh]

Yeah I agree with everything here, and I'm curious as to how long the superhero movie genre will last. With Marvel throwing 3+ movies out next year, with some of those being the likes of Ant-man and Luke Cage (obscure characters to my limited knowledge) the general public may become sick of superhero movies before we get to see a Green Lantern or JLA movie.

 

[Fanticon]

So whats next for DC/WB? Watchmen? Because I was kind of diggin' the two a year pattern....1 in winter or spring and then 1 in the summer...but is there anything on the line up for next year? Or do we have to wait till '08?

 

[The Batman]

Yes, because TW ISNT trying to make movies on Wonder Woman, The Flash, Watchmen, Doom Patrol, Deadman, Captain Marvel, and Y the last man. Like films based on V for Vendetta and Constantine havent come out....

the stigma that WB only makes Supes and Bats is silly and outdated

 

[Deadman666]

Its because Batman and Superman pwn everything else in DC. They are the 2 gods of DC.

GL, Flash, Shazam etc...all fall in after; just be happy there are possibilities now that there could be films for gl, flash and shazam.

 

[Agentsands77]

Batman and Superman are really the two worthwhile DC heroes. Other than that, the other characters are interesting, but not as stand-alone franchises (they work far better in situations like JLA, or just with a full knowledge of the whole DC mythology - they're not great independent characters).

DC's strength other than that, however, is its non-superhero stuff. DC's put out a lot of cool material over the years.

 

[CConn]

Batman and Superman are really the two worthwhile DC heroes. Other than that, the other characters are interesting, but not as stand-alone franchises (they work far better in situations like JLA, or just with a full knowledge of the whole DC mythology - they're not great independent characters).

Saying that is like saying Marvel's only two interesting properties are Spider-Man and X-Men. Once you start digging, you find characters just as interesting and "worthwhile" as the main ones.

 

[Lex Luthor]

I was really expecting Whedon to make an announcement about Wonder Woman at the Comic con in July, but nothing. I agree that Warner's particular interest in Supes and Bats is a bit frustrating. DC has many characters that can be realized on the silver screen. Hopefully this will happen sooner, rather than later.

 

[Dr. Fate]

Marvel has had a bunch of movies now based on their heroes, but from DC all you ever see are Superman and Batman movies, I love them, they're my faves, don't get me wrong, but DC has more Heroes.

Are they ever going to make other DC movies based on their Super Heroes.

I wanna' see a Green Lantern movie, a serious one, none of that Jack Black garbage, I know it's only a rumor but, Black recently said it still might happen which is probably crap, but still, it seems WB doesn't seem to care about DC.

They also need to do a Flash movie and Wonder Woman aswell, as Aquaman.

Lobo would be neat to see on the big screen too. It's time for more.

Agreed. As much as I like them, I'm tired of only having films about Supes and Bats. I want some DC diversity damn it!

 

[Fanticon]

...okay seriously...whats next...is there only 1 DC movie scheduled for 2007 or is that wishful thinking? And more likely...they're holding off on DC properties this year after Superman barely made a splash at the domestic boxoffice...and they'll focus on other things...like how to market a film better...if Constantine and V can (on a 50m+budget) cross 70million domestically...why don't they put the focus on something like Watchmen right away? I think the last two years that we saw an underdog DC property debut in Feb. or March...they've been considered the best of that season with almost no competition...its a prime slot...and set up for getting the DC WB team ups out in the public...and when they're ready to release a major property...the general audiences are somewhat familiar with the DC logo popping up over movies that they didn't even know were based on some kind of comic book property.

 

[storyteller]

I like how you praise marvel for the multiple films when it really isnt marvel. Different studios bought the movie rights to multiple comics(most wont be used for a while). Those studios made films. Those studios each took a risk with the films they made. Some made big and some made little. Dc comics is owned by warner bros. Generally the wb wont lease out the movie/television rights to any other company. So wb cant bring out 10 different superhero films on the budget these films have. The wb takes all of the risk while marvel takes little(if a comic movies fails, marvel doesnt take a hit). Course now marvel is taking more risk though by being more hands on.

 

[dnno1]

...The wb takes all of the risk while marvel takes little(if a comic movies fails, marvel doesnt take a hit). Course now marvel is taking more risk though by being more hands on.

Actually the WB does retain the rights to distribute their films, but they don't necessarily wholly finance all of them. Films like the "Harry Potter" series (the blue chippers) are financed 100% by the WB. The rest are either co-financed with another production studio (like Legendary or Villiage Roadshow Pictures) or totally financed by another party (with the WB still retaining distribution rights). This is how the WB manages their risk (by speading it around).

 

[Steelsheen]

i think part of the reason why Marvel is particularly aggressive with the CBMs is because that is currently their strongest source of revenue. DC is still under the mother company of Time Warner, and TW has other sources of revenue that they can prioritize over DC's projects.

 

[That-Guy]

...okay seriously...whats next...is there only 1 DC movie scheduled for 2007 or is that wishful thinking? And more likely...they're holding off on DC properties this year after Superman barely made a splash at the domestic boxoffice...and they'll focus on other things...like how to market a film better...if Constantine and V can (on a 50m+budget) cross 70million domestically...why don't they put the focus on something like Watchmen right away? I think the last two years that we saw an underdog DC property debut in Feb. or March...they've been considered the best of that season with almost no competition...its a prime slot...and set up for getting the DC WB team ups out in the public...and when they're ready to release a major property...the general audiences are somewhat familiar with the DC logo popping up over movies that they didn't even know were based on some kind of comic book property.

I think the reason for the hesitancy toward making a Watchmen movie is the fact that it's a non-superhero-eque story that's about superheroes. What I mean is, the idea of the story has more in common with 1984 or Fahernheit 451 than Spider-Man or Batman. Thus marketing the film would be difficult because general audiences still view superhero movies as novelty items... some of which are very good, but not as serious films trying to make a point. To add fuel to the fire is the fact that the story is very well known and revered with comic book readers, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone outside of that community that's even heard of the story. Thus the general response may be: "Dr. Manhattan? Rohrschach? Who the f**k are these guys? When the hell is the next Batman movie coming out?"

The reason projects like Constantine and V for Vendetta had an easier time being greenlit is because they weren't marketed as "superhero" movies. Constantine just looks like a normal guy in a suit who happens to cast out demons. So they marketed it as a hipper, newer version of the Exorcist. In V for Vendetta, the hero does wear a costume, but it's not your traditional superhero costume, and the film was marketed more as a futuristic political thriller (which is what it is; not really a superhero story).

 

[Agentsands77]

Saying that is like saying Marvel's only two interesting properties are Spider-Man and X-Men. Once you start digging, you find characters just as interesting and "worthwhile" as the main ones.

Nah. I don't think so, and this is coming from an avid follower of the DC universe who vastly prefers the DC mythology to that of the Marvel mythology.

I do think that most of the non-Batman/Superman characters of DC's universe fit better as an ensemble, with interweaving stories with other superheroes. They're not great standalones, but work great when you have a whole Mt. Olympus thing going on with comics like JLA, or they're continually coming across other superheroes.

I do wonder if characters like Wonder Woman or Green Lantern really merit their own film (heck, there's no way I'm going to watch a Wonder Woman film... if it's done well enough, I may check out a Green Lantern film, though I doubt Green Lantern could really support a series a films).

 

[CConn]

Nah. I don't think so, and this is coming from an avid follower of the DC universe who vastly prefers the DC mythology to that of the Marvel mythology.

I do think that most of the non-Batman/Superman characters of DC's universe fit better as an ensemble, with interweaving stories with other superheroes. They're not great standalones, but work great when you have a whole Mt. Olympus thing going on with comics like JLA, or they're continually coming across other superheroes.

I do wonder if characters like Wonder Woman or Green Lantern really merit their own film (heck, there's no way I'm going to watch a Wonder Woman film... if it's done well enough, I may check out a Green Lantern film, though I doubt Green Lantern could really support a series a films).

Have you read a good deal of their solo comics?

I just honestly don't see how any one could read some of Geoff John's Flash run, or Hal Jordan's whole Parallax Saga and say those mythos aren't strong enough to support themselves as much as Batman or Superman.

 

[Agentsands77]

Have you read a good deal of their solo comics?

I just honestly don't see how any one could read some of Geoff John's Flash run, or Hal Jordan's whole Parallax Saga and say those mythos aren't strong enough to support themselves as much as Batman or Superman.

I have read a good deal of their solo comics. And no, I don't think The Flash can support a franchise, or Green Lantern.

Are they comics with good comic runs? Yeah. But I wouldn't say that makes them "star heroes" with massive appeal for box-office success. That's the key here. It's not just enough to say is there decent material to adapt for more than one film - you have to have the "it" factor that makes it a successful franchise.

 

[CConn]

Ah, so money is the key to you? I was more talking about quality - which is what's most important to me.

In any case, going alone with the box office angle...before his movies were made, what "it" factor did Blade have? What "it" factor did Fantastic Four, or Daredevil have? All of those movies were financial successes, and I don't see how they're any more interesting than any of DC's characters.

 

[Agentsands77]

In any case, going alone with the box office angle...before his movies were made, what "it" factor did Blade have? What "it" factor did Fantastic Four, or Daredevil have? All of those movies were financial successes, and I don't see how they're any more interesting than any of DC's characters.

BLADE didn't have an "it" factor - but none of its films were big hits anyway, and that series was entirely dispensable. Don't act as if it was a big success. Ultimately, the BLADE trilogy did just "okay."

DAREDEVIL barely made enough money. It didn't even make enough money to warrant a sequel - it's *not* launched a franchise, and we're talking about franchises here. A lot of superheroes could get away with single entries.

I do think the FANTASTIC FOUR has more crowd-pleasing appeal than a lot of heroes out there. When I think of Marvel, I think of SPIDER-MAN, X-MEN, and THE FANTASTIC FOUR. But again, FF has yet to prove itself as a viable hit franchise (though I think it might be able to).

And if anything, I think people are getting burnt out on superheroes. Sure, the mainstays are going to be successful, but I do think that the superhero craze is petering out, rather than getting started. I don't think it's smart to try and flood the market with more superhero flicks all over the place - it's far better to concentrate on the mainstay franchises right now (and for DC, those are Supes and Bats).

 

[CConn]

BLADE didn't have an "it" factor - but none of its films were big hits anyway, and that series was entirely dispensable. Don't act as if it was a big success. Ultimately, the BLADE trilogy did just "okay."

The Blade trilogy were never big budget movies, so why expect big budget returns? My point was that they were successful. Successful enough to produce sequels until the quality ran out of the franchise with Trinity.

DAREDEVIL barely made enough money. It didn't even make enough money to warrant a sequel - it's *not* launched a franchise, and we're talking about franchises here. A lot of superheroes could get away with single entries.

What do you think Elektra was? Fox had the decision to either go with a spin-off or a sequel. They - foolishly - chose the spin-off. As a film, DD was pretty moderately successful. It cost 78 million to make, and had a box office of 102 million. That's a profit of 23%. Superman Returns won't even end up with a percentage that good (although, admittedly, BB's precentage was higher at 33).

I do think the FANTASTIC FOUR has more crowd-pleasing appeal than a lot of heroes out there.

It's a group of very light, fun characters. Wally West is a very light, fun character. Why is it FF can be successful, but Wally West as Flash can't?

When I think of Marvel, I think of SPIDER-MAN, X-MEN, and THE FANTASTIC FOUR. But again, FF has yet to prove itself as a viable hit franchise (though I think it might be able to).

Comparatively, it did as well as BB did.

And if anything, I think people are getting burnt out on superheroes. Sure, the mainstays are going to be successful, but I do think that the superhero craze is petering out, rather than getting started.

Which is why I don't think anyone should be making movies about Luke Cage, Iron Fist, and Aquaman. But Luke Cage, Iron Fist, and Aquaman are hardly as popular character as Flash and Green Lantern are.

I don't think it's smart to try and flood the market with more superhero flicks all over the place - it's far better to concentrate on the mainstay franchises right now (and for DC, those are Supes and Bats).

Is one superhero movie a year really "flooding" the market? Right now they'll be a one year gap between Batman and Superman release dates, if DC filled that gap with the Flash or someone, would the general public just up and decide they don't like superhero franchises anymore?

And they've been concentrating on the "mainstay franchises" for nearly 30 years. When exactly will it be the "right time" to actually explore other superhero movie options?

 

[Agentsands77]

What do you think Elektra was? Fox had the decision to either go with a spin-off or a sequel. They - foolishly - chose the spin-off. As a film, DD was pretty moderately successful. It cost 78 million to make, and had a box office of 102 million. That's a profit of 23%. Superman Returns won't even end up with a percentage that good (although, admittedly, BB's precentage was higher at 33).

Elektra doesn't qualify as part of a Daredevil franchise, IMHO.

It's a group of very light, fun characters. Wally West is a very light, fun character. Why is it FF can be successful, but Wally West as Flash can't?

The Flash could get by with one film, but I think as a character, he'd lose audience appeal beyond that.

Comparatively, it did as well as BB did.

I just meant Fantastic Four has yet to have a successful sequel, so as of now, it has not proved itself as a franchise.

Is one superhero movie a year really "flooding" the market? Right now they'll be a one year gap between Batman and Superman release dates, if DC filled that gap with the Flash or someone, would the general public just up and decide they don't like superhero franchises anymore?

Yeah. I don't see a bright future for films like IRON MAN or those sorts, just because the whole superhero thing is getting to feel real passe. If DC was the only one making superhero films, it would hardly be flooding the market. But Marvel has superhero films coming out as well.

And they've been concentrating on the "mainstay franchises" for nearly 30 years. When exactly will it be the "right time" to actually explore other superhero movie options?

Perhaps never. It's possible that DC already missed the window to get such films out there in the market. But I don't think most of these characters can really support viable franchises. Most of them could probably do successful single installments, but multiple films? I'm doubtful.

 

[GL's Light]

I think that Green Lantern and The Flash could be successful feature film franchises - any, or almost any, comic book character can achieve cinematic success, regardless of their level of pre-sold fame amongst the general public. It's a matter of finding the right take on the material, and skillfully delivering and marketing a great film.

Green Lantern and The Flash have huge potential, if done right. The source material is so rich that truly great films could be made, and there's no reason to think that the general public wouldn't respond if the fimmakers nailed it.

 

[Octoberist]

The Flash is almost like the Spider-Man of DC: An average joe caught in a newfound situation. Also, he is knowns as the jokeser of DC (Wally West).

If you got someone like Ryan Reynolds or Dane Cook, you'll get tickets sold.

Green Latern has the potential to be the space opera of the DC movies.