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

Yeah, no. I meant guys like Martian Manhunter, Cyborg, the Flash. All of whom appeared on Smallville, and of course on the animated JL. So there is some mainstream awareness of DC's second tier. If Warners goes the Marvel Studios route and does individual films (which I don't think they should), they have every chance of hitting one out of the park, as Marvel was lucky enough to do with IM1.

 

Just for the record, that wasn't so much "luck" as "having a plan" which specifically included:

1) Having a director who was both familiar with the source material and capable of remaining faithful while being able to convert that into a movie,
2) Ensuring A-list talent wanted to be their stars or were prominent in their films (e.g. Thor and Captain America didn't have "A-list" stars, but had A-list Academy Award winners as main supporting roles) and
3) Making sure that the hook to build in the shared universe was both small but noticeable (the "SHIELD" bit in the first film was really very well done -- the SLJ cameo was icing on the cake at that point...)

It must pain Marvel that they don't have the rights to Spider-Man (handled atrociously recently) and X-Men to include in these things...

 

The thing is many good directors want the movie to follow their own style rather than the comic, such as Burton and Nolan.

Overall DC did well on casting, but the script is horrible, not sure why they produced so many good animated films but failed badly on real action ones.

BTW I don't think after the Avengers, the hook was handled well, SHIELD didn't make any appearance without any explanation in Iron Man 3.

 

I believe you're trying to say that DC have made quality animated films, but subpar live action films? I'm not sure here. The latest Superman one was garbage and let's not forget that 1989 Batman was a cultural phenomenon and Donner's Superman remains the single best comic book film of all time.

Marvel has the early Punisher (1989) and Captain America films, plus War Zone, Daredevil, Elektra, X3, Spiderman 3... Ghost Rider... a plethora of duds.

 

There's nothing idiotic nor inconsistent about it, Double-O Snark. But please, do explain why it's so.

 

Because he stops doing it for no reason? Like when he is talking to Rachel in the Tumbler...

 

There were bad ones, but overall DC's animated TV series and animated films are better than Marvel, and a lot better than around half of their real action movies.

Yeah Marvel had bad ones, too. Even most of the solo films aren't amazing in my view but at least Marvel/Disney's ones are fine as blockbuster movies.

 

Why is why I tend to think WB is thinking "Why bother with a JL movie? We don't need it, the great unwashed fans always give us plenty of money when we leave them begging for ten-odd years and then release another Superman or Batman movie. We've never done a JL movie before, and every other minor character we've tried it on with -- Steel, Catwoman, Supergirl -- has tanked. Let's stick to what we know."

 

Hang on, now... I thought we were talking solely of Marvel, the movie studio, doing it's own thing and now DC, the somewhat-movie studio parent company, not any Marvel-owned or DC-owned properties as films.

That's... difficult to judge...

 

Because

1 Many people want to see it, especially after the Avengers was successful. JL is the most famous superhero league, with the most famous 3 heroes.
2 If it is handled well, not only will it bring a lot of money, but it will also greatly increase the box office of the DC superhero movies after JL, we can see it from Iron Man 3, it would not gain 1200m if there was no Avengers.

WB was focusing on Harry Potter before 2011, now it's going to switch the focus.

 

It helped that they landed the one actor in Hollywood that was A)Primed for a comeback role, and B)Was essentially Tony Stark in Robert Downey Jr.

 

(1) Avengers was successful because Marvel spent the better part of ten years or so building up to it, introducing characters movie-by-movie, and as I've said to you before, the movie would never have existed if Robert Downey Jr. hadn't delivered a bravura performance across two Iron Man films. Warner Bros has not released a JL movie because nobody out in Suburgatory knows or gives a crap who the Justice League is; they do know and give a crap about Superman and Batman as individuals, but Justice League, no.

(2) You're putting the cart before the horse again, Poke. Warner Bros doesn't spend money on the "if" in that statement. It spends money on "Is it a marketable property on its own?" As for IM 3: that's pure conjecture, because you haven't accessed an alternate timeline where Avengers was not released before IM 3.

WB's focus on Harry Potter is a meaningless point to raise. I just told you Robinov is gone and bean counters are in his place. They control the pursestrings, not individual directors, and certainly not DC, which is Warner Bros' ***** and has been ever since it was sold to WB. Harry Potter was one of the bestselling novel series of all time, and generated a defined, marketable audience. It had, again, a good decade of being popular and in the public consciousness before it got anywhere near the silver screen. Justice League is not that and never will be.

 

1) Actually 4 years since Iron Man 1, and DC Superheroes are more famous than the Avengers so not everyone of them need a solo film to tell us their background, right now we have Superman, Batman and Lantern on screen, one more WW and it's good to go, Flash can wait after JL to have a solo movie.

They probably didn't know, but they do know what happened to the Avengers and Iron Man 3, and what they had is a even more famous franchise, just Superman/Batman solo brought a lot of money, what would happen it they put a league together? They do give a crap about money, especially A LOT OF MONEY. They would be huge idiots if they don't.

2) It's not if, it's the fact. Marvel/Disney used a much less popular and famous group of heroes and brought huge success to them. Based on the quality of Iron Man 3(better than 2 and worse than 1), it's very safe to say the box office bump(600m more than 2) was caused by the Avengers. If this is not enough, we can wait and see Thor2 and CA2's box office, it's safe to assume they would have big box office bump than the first one as well. So why would WB think using a more popular and more famous superhero league would not bring them a lot of money? They thought they are not as good as Disney?

The Justice League, if handled well, will bring a lot of money to the whole franchise. HP has a lot of readers, but you really want to count the audience of DC Superheroes?

 

There I was, Like-ing your post to show general agreement, when you had to throw in that knock against ASM and scupper the whole deal. Instant Unlike. The Lizard may be something of a weak link in Webb's film, but IMO Spidey and Pete are so beautifully and faithfully realized that the overall outcome is positive. "Handled atrociously"? Try "accurately put on film for the first time EVER".

And though I concur in general with the above-quoted post, it's worth noting that Green Lantern had all the same points on its side -- the A-list director, the proven talent, the subtle references to a larger DC Universe -- and it still tanked. There is a right-time/right-subject aspect to all these films, a zeitgeist which cannot be planned, which IM had and GL lacked. That's what I meant by "luck".

 

GL would at least have higher box office if they picked the right villains.

 

Or a different actor to play Hal Jordan instead of Reynolds

 

I don't even like Hal Jordan, but yeah, Reynolds fit Flash better.

 

If the gallery will let me Hodor (a despicable pastime by all accounts) for two seconds, I would have liked to see Nathan Fillion as Hal Jordan and Ryan Reynolds as Barry Allen, but I guess it's too late for that.

 

It wasn't just the villains. It was the story. You have this huge Green Latnern Corp and all of this galaxy that you show us... only to take us back to boring earth for the rest of the movie.

If you wanted GL to have been a good movie you'd need to do the following...
Cast a Hal Jordan that people can believe is Hal Jordan. Reynolds did his best and if the script and story was stronger maybe he could've done something with it.
Drop Paralax, terrible idea considering how well Galactus was received. Replace Paralax with someone like Atrocitus and do a type of Secret Origins story with Hal hunting him on Earth.
Have Sintestro be more involved. Have Sinestro help Hal hunt Atrocitus on Earth and allow Hal to see how efficient and yet authoritarian Sinestro is. Thus setting up him being a tragic villain.
Either devote considerable time on Oa training or have the time be a noticeable 3-4 months later after he returns to Earth.

Reynolds strikes me more as a Wally West myself. But then again Rosenbaum's Flash is about the only version I know so that's what I think of when I hear 'the flash'

But what about DC dropping Hal as the lead lantern and having John Stewart be the new main lantern in the movies? Have Hal be a secondary character that trains him, more comedic characters work better when they aren't the main character anyways.

 

double post

 

Yeah, Atrocitus or the Manhunters would have been the best choice for the first GL movie, then Sintestro.

 

Stop it. Have you forgotten the horror of the JLA film thread?

This kind of fanwankery has no place outside of Episode VII forums. Dear god Merlin, the terrorists almost won.

Etc, etc

 

I enjoy at least semi-educated casting conjecture.

My shame apparently has no, uh, depths.

 

Merlin I swear to Odin, if I have to come over there..!

 

Odin has no power in the DC universe. You must swear to Zeus or High Father.