Early Cut Of Justice League Deemed “Unwatchable,” Substantial Changes Being Made...

[PNGwynne]

... I'm super bored of Miller influenced Batman, I'd like a new take.

Egad, me too. And what has been done to Superman, who should be DC's flagship character, is abominable.

[Earth 2 Chris]

I've said for years DKR was the WORST thing to ever happen to Superman.

Chris

[Hector]

I've said for years DKR was the WORST thing to ever happen to Superman.

Chris

Truer words have never been spoken...I hate Miller more than Snyder...

[toothaction]

Truer words have never been spoken...I hate Miller more than Snyder...

Weird. Christopher wasn't Frank's fault, heh.

Now if you had said Millar, maybe we could talk.

[MRP]

I've said for years DKR was the WORST thing to ever happen to Superman.

Chris

DKR was a seminal story. But it was meant to be a standalone story, not the story bible for the DCU for the next 30+ years. As a story, it stands on its own merits and is an outstanding work. It changed my view of what comics were capable of. As much as I love super-hero comics, it opened my eyes to a whole wider world of possibilities as a high school kid. But as a blueprint for the DCU, DKR is terrible. It's been people not understanding what it is and what it is meant to be trying to emulate it and make everything else fit in its box going on for 31 years now, and none of them can approach Miller's level in doing so. Miller hasn't done much I have liked in nearly 20 years, but that doesn't take away what he did accomplish. The problem isn't DKR or Miller, it's people trying to crib Miller and his work without understanding what it is they are cribbing or what they are doing.

-M

[hedrap]

^Crib is the exactly right word.

Doesn't it all come down to Wolverine? There's some weird nexus between Miller/DKR/Wolverine that I've always felt was DC/WB's motivator. Like, they always had a character that could match against Marvel in name brand...until Wolverine came along. So they took Miller's Batman, (because Miller legitimized Wolverine as a solo character), and rebuilt him into DC's answer.

[enyawd72]

I wrote a post a few years ago called something along the lines of the men who ruined superhero comics. Miller was at the top of the list. Yes, I liked DKR when it came out, but I can tell you this much. Knowing the effect it has had on the DCU since it's release, I wish it had never been written.

[huedell]

^Crib is the exactly right word.

Doesn't it all come down to Wolverine? There's some weird nexus between Miller/DKR/Wolverine that I've always felt was DC/WB's motivator. Like, they always had a character that could match against Marvel in name brand...until Wolverine came along. So they took Miller's Batman, (because Miller legitimized Wolverine as a solo character), and rebuilt him into DC's answer.

It seems like Aquaman is the new Wolverine...I mean Lobo...I mean, well, you get it. Right?

Miller may have ruined comics but that's it. I can't blame him for the movies, and I have a hard time even blaming him for anything. I mean, he was just a guy who had different takes on certain superheros, some of which caught on in a very fluid medium: Comics.

Now... movies? I dunno, I look at movies as more of a substantial statement with more legacy (and therefore more responsibility) attached.

Like MRP said:

DKR was a seminal story. But it was meant to be a standalone story, not the story bible for the DCU for the next 30+ years. As a story, it stands on its own merits and is an outstanding work. It changed my view of what comics were capable of. As much as I love super-hero comics, it opened my eyes to a whole wider world of possibilities as a high school kid. But as a blueprint for the DCU, DKR is terrible. It's been people not understanding what it is and what it is meant to be trying to emulate it and make everything else fit in its box going on for 31 years now, and none of them can approach Miller's level in doing so. Miller hasn't done much I have liked in nearly 20 years, but that doesn't take away what he did accomplish. The problem isn't DKR or Miller, it's people trying to crib Miller and his work without understanding what it is they are cribbing or what they are doing.

Wouldn't Miller's DKR sequel point toMiller not knowing what he himself was doing?

Um... anyway... it all comes down to the suits, right?

[MRP]

Um... anyway... it all comes down to the suits, right?

Suits follow the money. If DKR hadn't sold in huge numbers and gotten all the hysterically positive fanboy reaction, set the booktrade on fire with sales of the trade paperbacks when trade paperbacks were unheard of, it would have been just another Batman imaginary story that was well executed. But suits saw the hysteria, buzz, and revenue it generated and said, let's do more of that. So ultimately it comes down to the customers and how and on what they spend their dollars on. Comics fans get the comics their buying habits deserve. Moviegoers get the films their ticket and DVR buying habits deserve. Suits chase money. If fans leave money like a bread crumb trail to stuff like DKR and the grimdark DC movies, the suits will follow that trail and make more of it because they are led to believe it will make more money by the purchasing habits of the customer base. Internet posts don't generate revenue for companies. Open wallets do, and as long as enough fans open their wallets to support things like DKR or the current DC film U, you are not going to see anything different.

DKR emerged in a climate at DC where sales were not good and Khan and Giordano had a mandate to turn things around somehow. Their plan was to get good creators and turn them loose to do whatever they wanted, to be experimental since the status quo wasn't working well. The period is often referred to as the DC Renaissance because it was a period of great change, great experimentation, and helped DC financially emerge from the rut they had been in where they were bleeding off sales because the books they had been producing were not selling well, especially in the direct market which was where the bulk of comic sales had been moving at the time. Suits allowed experimentation because there wasn't a lot of other recourses. Once a successful project like DKR hit, suits latched on to it as a formula for success. Let's make more like that to make more money like that one did. Duplication and repetition is the norm in the entertainment business. Find a formula that works and exploit it by repeating it until the revenue stream form it dries up. Even Miller's sequels to DKR came from the recapture/repeat what was successful rather than from a go create something different place that the original DKR came from, and it shows in their lackluster execution and performance.

If DC had been able to emulate the drive which had created DKR instead of trying to imitate the result of that creative process, they (and comics) would be in a vastly different place right now, but that's not how it works in the entertainment business. Most of it is chasing dollars so what determined success and the shape of future projects is how and on the fans spend their money as long as there are enough of them to generate positive revenue flows. Again, comic fans get the comics their buying habits deserve.

-M

[palitoy]

Suits follow the money.

Yeah and this whole revision is likely die to Wonder Woman being a hit with much better legs than predicted.

[huedell]

Suits follow the money. If DKR hadn't sold in huge numbers and gotten all the hysterically positive fanboy reaction, set the booktrade on fire with sales of the trade paperbacks when trade paperbacks were unheard of, it would have been just another Batman imaginary story that was well executed. But suits saw the hysteria, buzz, and revenue it generated and said, let's do more of that.

And that I believe is where they got stuck.

This started with the overall positive production of the darker Batman (1989).

And it truly manifested as a studio reaction to Batman & Robin as a product, an assessment by the suits that at LEAST reacted equally from the critics reactions of heavy negative ratings if not MORE from them, than the box office receipts themselves which weren't that bad.

If DC had been able to emulate the drive which had created DKR instead of trying to imitate the result of that creative process, they (and comics) would be in a vastly different place right now,

If by that, you mean the creative focus DKR (the comic) had, then I suppose you are right. But this is more about film-making, film-production and film-marketing over a time-span of, like, TWO decades.

but that's not how it works in the entertainment business. Most of it is chasing dollars so what determined success and the shape of future projects is how and on the fans spend their money as long as there are enough of them to generate positive revenue flows. Again, comic fans get the comics their buying habits deserve.

I have to disagree with your emphasis of blame on the comic-buying fans... I mean, they have been a shrinking demographic for decades and do their best to support a wide range of titles while they're still "in the game" of buying comics regularly, and, as far as movie goers and their wallets, they are just desperate to see a superhero movie these days...

...and with all the quick cash coming in, its just harder for thick-headed suits to see through/sift through the situation to see how much money they're losing with a misdirected film project and how much they are embarrassing themselves and their licensed properties, particularly on the WB/DC side.

Recent stinkers like SS, MOS and BvS don't stand out as much as SR, Steel, Catwoman but they are hurting the brand almost as much, mainly because of (admittedly) what you said about fans' wallets. They still pay decent money to see cringey versions of top tier superheroes in films.

SONY apparently wasn't all that smart rebooting Spidey and going the Garfield route---but they fixed that.

They (FOX) handle X-Men pretty dang good... look at their latest: Logan. it CAN be done by people other than Marvel/Disney.

Wonder Woman? It was cool. But it doesn't convince me everything's is hunky-dory for Justice League or the rest of the DCEU.

No one sucks at this like WB/DC. For decades since Superman II... they basically dropped the ball, and as much as it pains me to say it (as I'm not a huge Nolan cheerleader), I say WB/DC weren't "smart" for getting Nolan involved, I say WB/DC were LUCKY that Nolan came along at the right place/right time to sell their more Millery grittier Batman reboot... because if it was Snyder back then instead of Nolan, they might not have been so fortuitous. Yet, we likely would've seen better Superman movies since then because the whole darker/grittier thing might not have been such an overall permeating juggernaut entity.

I will not believe that WB/DC suits and the investors that work with them, wouldn't be jumping for joy if they took finally blew apart this "Burton to Nolan" realer/darker mentality once and for all, and just did right by their character stable in the appropriate unique way for each unique character/property franchise like "you-know-who" did with their properties.

[Hedji]

I've said for years DKR was the WORST thing to ever happen to Superman.

Chris

And Batman, in my opinion. And comics in general. Everything from story tone, intended demographic, coloring, cover price, character treatment can be traced back to that book. I enjoyed the book for what it was, but I too wish it weren't the template for everything else. It certainly was influential, and has staying power, I'll say that.

That said, there's no way Justice League can be worse than B V. S.... I think the suits are being very mindful that there's an audience at the end of the production. I predict... It'll probably be pretty good, but still not MY ideal interpretation of these characters.

Marvel Studios gets picked on (unfairly I think) for making fluff entertainment, but they are dang entertaining, and get closer to the sweet spot than just about any other Superhero films.

[jimbutsu]

Yeah and this whole revision is likely die to Wonder Woman being a hit with much better legs than predicted.

I feel like your typo here might actually end up being more prophetic than erroneous. I have a very real fear that WB's learnings from WW are going to be "people like DC movies now" - which is NOT what they need to take away from that picture's success.

[enyawd72]

And that I believe is where they got stuck.

This started with the overall positive production of the darker Batman (1989).

I will not believe that WB/DC suits and the investors that work with them, wouldn't be jumping for joy if they took finally blew apart this "Burton to Nolan" realer/darker mentality once and for all, and just did right by their character stable in the appropriate unique way for each unique character/property franchise like "you-know-who" did with their properties.

^Spot on...until WB/DC learn to stop painting the entire DC universe with the Batman brush we will never get a steady stream of good films from them.

[MRP]

^Spot on...until WB/DC learn to stop painting the entire DC universe with the Batman brush we will never get a steady stream of good films from them.

And until non=-Batman movies can generate as much or more revenue than the Batman movies do, WB will continue to paint with the Batman brush because that has been the money maker for them. Again consumer dollars point the direction suits chase for the money. Until the Batman movies cease to be money makers and a Batman appearance in the movie ups the revenue stream, that's the brush they are going to use. Suits rarely innovate, they go where the money points them and the way consumers spend determines that direction. If people want DC/WB to learn another direction, they have to teach that direction with the way they spend their dollars.

-M