Announcement

**thunderbolt** · May 1, '16, 4:18 AM

^^ Yeah, WB should take the keys away from Didio, Johns, Snyder, etc and give them too Timm and Cooke.

**Random Axe** · May 1, '16, 5:06 AM

Stupid question but what are Johns job duties with the DCU? I figured the no.1 priority would be to protect the property, to make sure the characters weren't totally destroyed in the filmmaking process. I love most of his comic work and ideas but I truly don't see his signature on anything so far.

**PNGwynne** · May 1, '16, 8:02 AM

RA, you're assuming DC cares about their characters' core concepts, considers them worthy of protection. They do not: the cart is before the horse and has been for some time.

**Mr.Marion** · May 1, '16, 8:27 AM

I vote with my dollar. Believe me I wanted Batman v Superman to be a good movie going experience. But after Man of Steel, the reviews and hearing Aquaman would only be given 30 seconds of screentime (after being on posters and having Action figures advertise that he's in the movie) I couldn't justify taking someone with me to see it.

Deadpool on the other hand was excellent, original, and fun. I expect Civil War and X-Men Apocalypse to have some excitement, anticipation, and enthusiasm.

**huedell** · May 1, '16, 9:26 AM

I think many here are "over-nuancing" what's going on here.

I mean, there may be a lot of valuable truth in saying that: WB/DC needs to "take better care of" and "respect the core of" their DC superhero characters... you know: "Like Marvel does". That's all fine and good... I suppose I agree...

...but the greater gnawing feeling here is that: Overall Disney makes well-crafted popcorn/audience friendly movies.... WB/DC chases after "trends", "what's hot" etc while usually ignoring most of the stuff that makes a good superhero movie, or a good family movie a "solid" film... Deadpool was simply the "R" rated version of that.

People complain about "formulaic" or "by the numbers" movies, or movies that pander to an audience with certain expectations.

Really?

But, um: These certain "expectations" aren't so much any reverence towards any particular character's "core" as much as it is THE GENRE. Make a good popcorm movie, dangit. That's what built the MCU. And ignoring that mindset is what is dismantling the DCCU.

Now here's what "I" think is the "nuanced" part of this:
I think a big part of this scenario's blame could be placed on the "about face" of Nolan's Batman Begins reboot (dry & overrated yet overwhelmingly---desperately---embraced by those who wanted a "serious" Batman movie), followed by the "hard to resist" TDK, which IMHO wasn't so much indicative of any knack Nolan had for a better tone, than say: Dini/Timm... but, more a convergence of a lot of luckily placed film production elements: Most notably: Ledger's definitive ambitiously unique Joker performance. And, you know, Nolan's no "hack", he can make a good commercial movie if the air is right.

More "bad luck" that blinded WB/DC to get us to the point that we are now:
There's taking into account the inherent darker, more serious tone of what became their flagship character (Batman) muddying the waters of what they thought the audience thought a superhero should be, AND THEN: The bizarre emo elements (deadbeat dad, moping stalker) of their former flagship character in (the otherwise charming) Superman Returns, a couple key elements which, if removed, would've likely gave WB/DC a "Force Awakens rehash/soft reboot success" situation.

Or, you could say:

Originally posted by thunderbolt

What the suits don't get is that the dark and somber tone work for Batman, its not the same tone that should be applied across the board. Superman should have a more positive outlook and Captain Marvel should be Superman times 5.

I was only attempting to pinpoint where things went wrong.... it's all Batman's fault, really.

The Batman character just has too much "dark potential" that people (studio & audience alike) forgot what a superhero movie was when they addressed the "course-correcting" follow-up to "Batman & Robin"

**lilbrosj66** · May 1, '16, 11:20 AM

While I enjoyed BvS more than most people (going to see it for the 3rd time later this morning) I would not be opposed to Mr. Snyder being shown the door and WB bringing in someone. A fresh set of eyes could be just what the doctor ordered.

I also won't get too worked up by the changes going on behind the scenes with Flash and Aquaman. That kind of thing happens all the time and it could be a very good thing.

**Nostalgiabuff** · May 1, '16, 11:49 AM

although a lot of people did not like BvS, you cannot argue that it hasn't made a ton of money, worldwide box office as of today $862,932,593 that's not too shabby, Domestic gross alone is $325,132,593. while they could likely have made more money had it been a better movie, they are still making a lot of profit here

**MIB41** · May 1, '16, 12:11 PM

I think the problem that blankets the public perception of Warner Bros with this property are not only the artistic miscues that seem to dog them relentlessly, but also the endless number of false start ups through the years that have created their own backstories:

* Tim Burton and Kevin Smith's Superman Lives
* Joss Whedon's Wonder Woman
* JJ Abram's Superman Flyby
* Darren Aronofsky's Batman: Year one
* George Millers Justice League

And that's just the short list. Add to that the films that have been high profile flops like Green Lantern or under performers like Superman Returns which caused them to shut down and reboot with a new actor in Man of Steel that was also a mixed bag commercially and critically...well... there's generally a sense that no one at the helm is really in tune with what the public is interested in. And even where WB rarely hit hot platinum with the Nolan Dark Knight series, the studio has seemingly walked away with all the wrong lessons to apply to other projects.

The studio reacted to the Nolan films as if they got all their work done on mood and cosmetics alone. Such an odd takeaway when you watch those films (in my opinion). I think what made those films universally appealing is because they were well cast, well directed, and told stories that were fairly captivating (even if some didn't agree with the treatment). For all the various opinions that can be collected on the Nolan films, what I don't hear too often is that they were poorly made films. There's a craft and quality to them that certainly denotes someone well versed in the art of story telling.

But WB walked away from that and thought, " Lets make our films violent. Lets make our films more adult driven. Let's make our heroes less charming. Let's even make our cartoons adult rated." And that's where I just throw up my arms with a collective, "WHAT?!" Those qualities were (at best) surface elements of the Nolan films that were more suggested than explicit (as well as aspects inherently tied to the Batman myth). But suddenly WB thinks these ideas need to become the written handbook for just about ANY DC product that comes out? So they go out and snatch up the Rob Zombie of the genre with Zach Snyder and act like the general public would 'understand' once they saw the finished product? Turns out WB is the one still not understanding the product. So that get's us to present day.

We have a studio making a big production of the Justice League with the same director who was just booed out of theaters for BVS. And this film will carry all the treatments from BVS since it's essentially a sequel made by the same director. So honestly this kind of disregard and lost perception of what the public is wanting (or not wanting) seems to be the battle cry from the top offices at Warner Bros. They seem every bit as removed from the process in Justice League as they were when they had Tim Burton and Kevin Smith working together to try and sell Nicholas Cage as the man of steel. How much money will they spend on Justice League before they understand this is not working? Or is it simply too late and they have to live with whatever happens because it would be too financially catastrophic to change course now? This is the mantra of Warner Bros. An entire universe of fascinating heroes and they are absolutely clueless on what to do with them. Marvel properties are in their 18th year of successful movies. Sure there have been a few duds along the way, but for a property that has mostly been it's own competition, it's fascinating to see new films coming out with fresh ideas like Guardians or Deadpool. That is the difference between those two licenses at the theaters. Audiences expect a better percentage of good films based on Marvel properties. DC heroes seem to be very much a hit or miss with the miss being more prominent. And when you constantly read about all of this creative turmoil on each and every project in the DC realm, is it hard not to cast doubt on that product?

**PNGwynne** · May 1, '16, 2:50 PM

I think that Hue and Tom have made excellent points. I may not like all Marvel films, but they seem to usually hit it closer to fan (and general audience-pleasing) expectations.

Some of this discussion is largely a matter of taste and personal investiture. I'm not as close to most Marvel characters. I know I'll never see a Batman film featuring the hero as I perceive him: somewhere between West and Bale, Dozier and Nolan. I would not say, though, that this is only the movies' fault. That Batman has not existed for nearly thirty years, partly due to Miller and an aging Denny O'Neil, and exclusive of Hollywood.

I also think, as this film genre grows, customers will be more discerning and demanding of storylines and characterization. It's just not enough to have a decent actor show up in an approximate costume and punch a lot.

**thunderbolt** · May 1, '16, 3:51 PM

What the suits don't get is that the dark and somber tone work for Batman, its not the same tone that should be applied across the board. Superman should have a more positive outlook and Captain Marvel should be Superman times 5.

**lilbrosj66** · May 1, '16, 4:34 PM

Just saw it for the third time. So I have to say, although I think the transition from Batman and Sups beating the crap out of each other to them being buddies was a little lacking and happened too quickly, I still thoroughly enjoyed the movie.

**Earth 2 Chris** · May 1, '16, 4:49 PM

* Tim Burton and Kevin Smith's Superman Lives
* Joss Whedon's Wonder Woman
* JJ Abram's Superman Flyby
* Darren Aronofsky's Batman: Year one
* George Millers Justice League

There was also the ORIGINAL Superman/Batman movie, planned to be shot after Superman Returns and Batman Begins were out. So that's another false start.

Somewhat unrelated...but I just came back from The Jungle Book. This movie had tremendous action sequences, a solid, decipherable storyline, characters with clear motivations, and fantastic CGI characters. And it was rated PG. Seeing this made me realize how far off track BvS was from the get go. DC should have lured someone like Favreau over, a director who always has a wink in his eye, and brings a sense of wonder to all his films. They've hitched their cart to the wrong horse, and now they are paying for it.

Chris

**hedrap** · May 1, '16, 5:52 PM

Originally posted by enyawd72

Holy crap...we just agreed on something AGAIN.

It's a madhouse! A MADHOUSE!!

We're in the ballpark on a number of genre-related fronts, like Silver Age and classic horror.

Re: Marvel producing DC movies. A co-production is possible years from now, but Marvel will never produce/distribute DC movies. Disney/Marvel wants WB to go under and have a shot at buying the WB/DC IP library. Disney wasn't offering to co-produce Star Wars before they bought Lucas. Same rules apply.

RE: Directors leaving. Right after BvS, WB put new producers in place as overseers. I think that's the problem. Greene and Wan are stylistic directors, they haven't worked for Marvel for that reason. It's why Edgar Wright got bumped from Ant-Man and the Russo's are golden. Marvel wants technicians not auteurs. Favreau and Branagh got bumped for enforcing their tastes, as did Whedon. WB went the other way and are now regretting it, but you can't reign in hot commodity directors. That's why Marvel grabs Whedon, the Russos, Peyton Reed, etc...they're all in movie jail at the time of the offer, so they must comply. It's Feige directing by proxy and his direction is to follow what Favreau originated.

Re: Firing Snyder. If Affleck wanted him gone, he would be. IMO, Ben is calling the shots and it's better for him to have Snyder take the barrage than put his name forward. If they fired Snyder, all the ugly secrets would come out and that would be worse for WB.

Re: Johns. You would assume he's a steward, but Nu52 showed that was never his intention. He's there to figure out how to justify the creative film decisions. No Grant Gustin? Multiverse. Cyborg a product of Mother Box? Reboot the comic and claim it as canon. Batman kills people? Golden Age. In return he gets to act like a maestro. When I read he was shocked at the BvS response, it means he's either totally disconnected or lying as he most certainly helped sell this vision to the WB bosses.

...and Zootopia has now equaled BvS in domestic gross, and passed it with international.

**huedell** · May 1, '16, 6:24 PM