Amph Here's Some Money, Go See A Swap Thing: DCU/Elseworlds Discussion

There would be a continuity, but they wouldn't have to reboot each time there's a change in actors and filmmakers. Eventually that's going to get old, which is part of the reason "The Amazing Spider-Man" didn't do as well as expected. A full reboot isn't needed to tell a Batman story, since everything that's needed to be said was said in "Batman Begins". It would only be necessary if there was something that needed to be said, in order to tell the main story. "Batman Begins" was justifiable because the origin was only barely touched upon in the first film series. The last film went full on and then created a connective tissue that made that origin important. From what we know of this next film, a full origin isn't necessary. Beyond that, unless there's an intention to connect the origin to the present day story, I'd say it wouldn't be important and would grow out of the crossover film.

 

Right, I agree with this. But you also highlighted the difference between simply carrying on "James Bond" style with different actors, and having a developed, fully linked universe to act within.

Let's go back to the "Gotham by Gaslight" example. Sure, I think on a basic level, WB would be able to get away with announcing a Batman movie where Batman goes back to 1889 and pals around with Sigmund Freud. By now, even the general movie public knows about Batman without having any knowledge of the comic, so it would probably be interesting. Sure, in print, the story was an "Elseworlds," non-continuity, but the general audience wouldn't know, or care about that. Some actor could play Batman, and some actor would play Freud, and it would succeed based on how believable they were and whether or not the director captured the essence of the character by putting nipples on the batsuit or not.

Now, imagine if WB starts off in a Superman movie, and introduces the character Darkseid (or similar MacGuffin villain), who Superman has to fight in that film, but it is also revealed that Darkseid has collected heroes out of the time stream... It would take nothing more than a few scenes to show Batman, who everyone knows, getting flung to the 1880's. Then, when the Batman Gaslight movie was released, there would already be an audience connection to, and an explanation for the movie, and as a bonus, it acts as a "movie within a movie." Then in that movie, there is a glimpse of a slower aging character "John Jones" who is really a Martian who is acting as a detective on Earth. As a result, the Martian Manhunter movie comes out, with another ready made explanation of what he is doing as part of a larger picture. Wonder Woman is introduced during WWII or even other ancient time period. The Spectre and Doctor Fate are shown gathering a group. Finally, all of the above come together in a bookend movie to resolve the ultimate problem caused by Darkseid that was introduced in the first movie.

The first example is the old, studio way of thinking which WB seems to still subscribe to. The second is the overall device, adapted for movies, that has been so successful in comics themselves for decades now. Call it the "Secret Wars" effect, or the "Crisis effect" if you want. But if the comic book source material has told unified story arcs across multiple issues and characters for a while now, it's actually surprising that it has taken so long for the movie versions to adopt this. At least Marvel has. DC seems a bit befuddled. Or at least Marvel is finally supporting itself. DC/WB is working against itself, forcing each part to hit or miss the right formula in isolation. You've been telling stories for 80 years now. You mean that you still don't know how to translate your characters without going through a committee who doesn't seem to know anything about them?

 

Well, if things go right in a certain sense, I think the goal is to build up solo films from the crossover film and the potential JLA film. It is opposite of the Marvel method, but it seems to me that they're doing so to test the waters.

 

And based on where they are, that method would be WB's greatest chance for success. If that's the plan, and they aren't just piecemealing it, then they have to stick with it. Is JLA still a go or is it on hold? Because if it's going to be the event which starts tying their characters together, they're going to have to wait for it, even if it is 2018 or whenever. So test the waters with Batman v Superman. Hopefully, how the two tentpole characters interact in that will set the stage on how they have the characters interact moving forward. But if this is the case, then it would almost be counterproductive to make something like a stand alone Batman movie in between it and whenever JLA comes out, because it would just muddle the waters.

 

C'mon, man... even I, who detested what MoS did to the Superman mythos, acknowledge that it was a financial success just not one that did as well as WB predicted which led to their panicking. Not that it wasn't a decent success overall, were it not a tentpole, Superman-relaunching movie.

That first to second week drop-off alone was pretty amusing to watch...

 

Yeah cuz Monsters University and World War Z didn't open the weekend after. Oh wait.

Let's actually note WHY it fell of eh?

 

Because it was bad, duh.

Let's not explain why any summer films in history (let alone Christmas films) do well or not well because it's obviously the other films...

 

Well it sold the third most Blu-Rays in 2013 apparently.

http://comicbook.com/blog/2014/04/0...-3-in-dvd-and-blu-ray-sales-by-a-wide-margin/


And it sold nearly twice the amount that IM3 did so some people must like it?

 

One of the two films will move by the time 2016 rolls around, and right now, Marvel has the leverage to hold it's ground and stand pat with the success of Cap2.

 

dp, I do think you're being a bit hard on MoS, for precisely the reason you've already outlined. Let me back track. I was one of the few who actually enjoyed Superman Returns. Not that it was all that great of movie...it wasn't. The first half was better than the second. The plot sucked. The kid was pointless, annoying, and more mythos destroying than anything. What's her name who played Lois was waaaay over her head. But I liked Routh and Spacey as core characters, and the scenes with just Superman had some hope to the character. The problem with Superman Returns beyond the long list of specifics above was that it looked backward. Returns wouldn't have been so bad had it been released in 1990, or even in 1987 and IV could have been skipped. Which was by design by Singer in a kind of tribute/homage to the 70's Reeve Superman. But that's it. It was a 1990 movie finally released in 2006.

Now Fast Forward to MoS. I think this movie finally got the character right based on your previous spot on "understanding the character" post. MoS is an investment for WB, because it's finally a movie that can move forward. It's not failure as much as it is the 1st dollar deposited into a savings account. The core is intact, and if it continues, WB might finally have something to build upon. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how one looks at it, I do think it means that A LOT is riding on Supes v Bats, so I hope WB/DC is ready.

 

MOS did nothing to the mythos that wasn't already covered in the comics.

-Killing Zod? Superman #22.

-Superman having a crisis of faith? Superman #204 through 215.

-Superman not being trusted by the world? "Birthright" and "Secret Origin".

 

It's not too early, but almost a bit too late.

 

More than a bit late, IMO. But as it has been posted here and elsewhere, it's Warners' fault (including the producers hoarding each franchise) not knowing how to handle their properties in such a way as to successfully compete with Marvel. And they are kidding themselves if they say they don't want to compete or simply get a piece of that action. Otherwise, MoS 2: Not Quite World's Finest Guest Starring half the DC Universe wouldn't be getting made.

 

DC can make whatever face-saving statement they want, but the only reason "Batman vs. Superman" is even happening is because of the Avengers film.

 

I don't even need a DCU to be honest. I'm perfectly happy with stand alone DC superhero movies. Having a cinematic universe on screen just brings up more questions about, "Well why wasn't so and so here blah blah blah." And its because of budget concerns. It works in print form because words aren't the same as film.

Am I excited for Batman/Superman? Yes. Very. But I don't need a DCU to come of it. I'm enjoying what I have right in front of me for now, the future is far away and a lot can change.

 

I don't understand how it's too early. We've known about Marvel's plan for years.

 

Of course they need one.
The failure of Lantern pretty much means NO other heroes other than S&B could have a good solo unless with success on something like JL.

 

Really? The failure of one movie means that? Are you close personal friends with the CEO of Warner?

Please. DC doesn't need a DCU or to copy Marvel's formula. Marvel does their Universe very well and we don't need a copy cat DC Universe.

 

Not just one, quite a few over the past few decades actually.

But DC's heroes fit Marvel's formula better, Justice League was much more famous than the Avengers, the Avengers weren't even Marvel's top superhero league before MCU, it was X-Men.

 

Well no, they don't need a "U" per se, but that entire statement shows how far behind they actually are. I think Arawn hit the nail on the head with face saving, but it isn't really that either.How much can the studio rest on alternating Superman and Batman as individual properties? With Batman, when could another singular movie even be made and have it mean something? WB might not be comparing itself to Marvel studios right now, but the audiences certainly are. Transpose that statement back to the 1920's, and imagine if another studio had been making movies with a new invention called sound for years now. WB would come off as clueless buffoons:

"...tells IGN that there isn't a plan to create a more movies with sound just yet: "It's too early. I know that Warner Bros. would love to give their universe more sound. There have been a lot of general conversations about that, but it's really, really early. I'm not sure. The other guy has had enormous success, but I'm not sure that everybody should try to emulate them either. Its just been vague conversations so far. Asked if watching how movies with sound are unfolding both at its own studio and at others are impacting his approach to material, he says: "I know this is going to sound cheap, but I don't really. There's just our approach to how we want to tell a story, and hopefully we can convince Warner Bros. or whatnot of that. We don't sit in a room with cigars and say, 'Look at what these guys are doing!' It doesn't work that way. I don't know... We've been pretty lucky with the films we've done so far without sound. I think right now it's just kind of, 'More of the same, please.'"

The last sentence, basically the studio heads saying "more of the same please...." is the most telling. It shows how risk adverse they are. I don't think WB will ever have the equivalent to a Marvel Studios, because the executives don't seem to want to give up control.

 

Well, there is also the historical record they go by. The popularity of Marvel characters rises and falls across the decades (cinematically speaking - where's the Next-Gen version of Blade, for example?) but Superman and Batman are trusted intellectual properties. WB makes a single, or a couple of movies, based on the character, then leave it alone for a decade or so, then bring it back out again. That model, like it or not, has worked: people keep coming back like Pavlovian dogs for the tights no matter how crap the last one was ten years ago. Butts on seats and ticket sales matter more than the whiniest comic book fan's concerns about the product or the character. Man of Steel made no overt moves towards a shared universe, and it still made decent if not groundbreaking money. I think it comes down to: if it ain't broke, why fix it? Especially given Kevin Tsujihara is running the movie arm and not Jeff Robinov. He's ordering multiple sequels to the Lego movie: again, no need to construct shared universes, because why bother -- the original intellectual property worked and ties in nicely to non-movie sales of all kinds, so why get complex about it?

On top of that, WB would be just chasing a trend if they now said they were moving to a DCU, which looks pathetic on top of heightening the risk of superhero overload. Personally I think Marvel is skating that line right now. The numbers for Avengers 2 and to a lesser extent GoTG are going to give us a preview of how jaded audiences are (if they are) with superhero movies, and it won't just be Marvel who'll be looking carefully at those figures. This will sound counterintuitive, but given WB's risk-averse nature I will be hoping that GoTG turns out to be a massive hit, and that Avengers 2 does at least as good a set of numbers -- because that might contribute towards convincing DC that there's a continuing appetite for multiple tights in the same film.