Jump to content


Photo

[Films] DC Cinematic Universe


  • Please log in to reply
2025 replies to this topic

#21 tenchu

tenchu

    Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,328 posts

Posted 15 September 2014 - 01:51 AM

DC has a problem when it comes to none-animated films, Batman is their only character that is performing well. i dont know what the problem is, maybe marvel is more eager to take risks and thus have come up with a good formula. Marvel avenger assembled series was pretty risky but it paid off. But maybe DC's problems is more than how they have tried or not tried to come up with a good live action film besides batman, maybe their problem is that most of their characters are too perfect or too alien to relate to humans, and thus dont translate well into live action films.


Edited by tenchu, 15 September 2014 - 06:18 AM.

  • Kazekage likes this

24gvaiu.jpg


#22 Kazekage

Kazekage

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,305 posts

Posted 15 September 2014 - 05:56 AM

The problem is that the Batman franchise solely needs a break and at the same time the writers (especially the ones working on Gotham) are drinking Frank Miller/Chris Nolan Kool Aid and think it's the be-all-end-all of Batman.  Furthermore, these adaptations paradoxically have nothing new to say about the character-because they keep harkening back to the all but dried out Frank Miller well for  inspiration but at the same time if tomorrow somebody wrote a Batman adaptation where he is a full fledged detective, humanitarian, surrogate father, brooding but ultimately caring and heroic and fights against a colourful rogues gallery of tragic and misunderstood villains that would be the most faithful live action adaptation of Batman since Adam West

Like I said before, WB is marketing based, because Batman worked they have made him the face of DC and are milking him dry and trying to make other characters like Green Arrow and Superman darker like him.  It works for GA since he has the same strengths as Batman; you can make him as light and dark as you like but not so much for Superman. 

 

 

well, doing Gotham Central would pretty much just make it another police procedural. Sure you'd get the occasional appearance of super villains or even batman, but then people would just go "why didnt they just make it a batman tv show? Why is batman letting the police deal with this super villain?" or something along those lines. At least with Gotham it's kind of a prequel that explores the life of a young jim gordon in a year one sort of way, though I agree that they arent going about it in the right way with all of these "young" versions of villains.

 

dont get me wrong, I love Gotham Central, but I dont think people would be interested in a live action adaptation of it.

 

A superhero police procedural is a unique concept in of itself. There are great story arcs like Renee Montoya's 'Half A Life' arc and her relationship with the Question that can be mined for adaptations.  It's a big city and Batman can't be everywhere and much like the rare Batman references in 'Teen Titans' showed; sometimes less is more.  Those moments had impact because they are rare. The show will work if they keep the lime light on the characters and their relationships with a few supervillains and mystery thrown in.   

Also I would jettison most of the charactes from Gotham Central in an adaptation and have it center on Gordon, Bullock,  Renee, Kitch, Bock, Crispus, Maggie Sawyer and other more interesting and unique cops that exist in the Bat world. Might even go for completle obscurity and bring in Sgt. Liz Muni and Patricia Powell.  

 

 

Regarding GOTHAM.

Didn't notice until I saw that pic of the characters and their names, in Kaze's post, but apparently Pamela Isley aka Poison Ivy aka Red, is now "Ivy Pepper?"

 

Like what kind of name is that?

Bad enough they're sticking her origins in Gotham despite being from Seattle, but now she has a name like that!!!

 

 

Anyways, I too would have liked a Gotham Central myself :D

 

We are going to find out the riveting origin story of how 'Ivy Pepper' became 'Pamela Lillian Isely'.  :hurr:

Now doesn't that sound exciting!?
:rolleyes:

 

:<_<:


Edited by Kazekage, 15 September 2014 - 05:57 AM.

  • garlyle likes this

#23 Narubi

Narubi

    Forever Dreaming

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,049 posts
  • LocationSitting alone in the dark, and contemplating life.

Posted 15 September 2014 - 06:16 AM


 
We are going to find out the riveting origin story of how 'Ivy Pepper' became 'Pamela Lillian Isely'. 

Now doesn't that sound exciting!?

 

Not really .... no.


 

Geez just thinking of that name, irks me so.

 

It sounds like some exotic spicing or one of those weird names celebrities name their children.

What's next? Harleen Quinzel aka Harley Quinn, will now be named Quinn Jet :heehee:


 

Or Waylon Jones, AKA Killer Croc, will be known as Croc Samson :hurr:  


  • Kazekage and garlyle like this
Show me the way to go home - I'm tired and I want to go to bed
I had a little drink about an hour ago - And it’s gone right to my head
Wherever I may roam - On land or sea or foam
You can always hear me singing this song
Show me the way to go home.

#24 Kazekage

Kazekage

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,305 posts

Posted 15 September 2014 - 06:28 AM

There was a Bruce Wayne tv show in the works  way before Smallville aired and it was far superior to 'Gotham'.  You can read the pilot script here [Link 1] as well as the details on how the show might have gone. For one thing, it has a far more cohorent narrative structure. 

 

 

Not really .... no.


 

Geez just thinking of that name, irks me so.

 

It sounds like some exotic spicing or one of those weird names celebrities name their children.

What's next? Harleen Quinzel aka Harley Quinn, will now be named Quinn Jet :heehee:


 

Or Waylon Jones, AKA Killer Croc, will be known as Croc Samson :hurr:  

 

It is indeed a horrible name.  Pamela Lillian Isley is such a beautiful name there was no reason to change it. 

And I guess  Harvey Dent will be known as 'Harold Janus Splitsville Dent'.  Oh and Selina's real name will be revealed to be 'Kitty Lupin Kyle'.  :hurr:

Don't forget all the horrible endless allusions to the characters future: 

"That Bruce Wayne guy is so batty!"

"URRGh, that Harvey Dent is so Two-Faced at times!" 

"Boy that guy is a real Joker!" 

"Hey, Penguin boy! You got some trick umbrella's on ya?" 

 

"Whatever, 'Riddler', just get me what I need." 
 


  • Raiden and Narubi like this

#25 Narubi

Narubi

    Forever Dreaming

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,049 posts
  • LocationSitting alone in the dark, and contemplating life.

Posted 15 September 2014 - 06:34 AM

^Oh the Horrors  :lol:   :lolxg:


  • Kazekage likes this
Show me the way to go home - I'm tired and I want to go to bed
I had a little drink about an hour ago - And it’s gone right to my head
Wherever I may roam - On land or sea or foam
You can always hear me singing this song
Show me the way to go home.

#26 tenchu

tenchu

    Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,328 posts

Posted 15 September 2014 - 06:47 AM


The problem is that the Batman franchise solely needs a break and at the same time the writers (especially the ones working on Gotham) are drinking Frank Miller/Chris Nolan Kool Aid and think it's the be-all-end-all of Batman. Furthermore, these adaptations paradoxically have nothing new to say about the character-because they keep harkening back to the all but dried out Frank Miller well for inspiration but at the same time if tomorrow somebody wrote a Batman adaptation where he is a full fledged detective, humanitarian, surrogate father, brooding but ultimately caring and heroic and fights against a colourful rogues gallery of tragic and misunderstood villains that would be the most faithful live action adaptation of Batman since Adam West.

Like I said before, WB is marketing based, because Batman worked they have made him the face of DC and are milking him dry and trying to make other characters like Green Arrow and Superman darker like him. It works for GA since he has the same strengths as Batman; you can make him as light and dark as you like but not so much for Superman.
i dont think you got what i said. The reason why they keep going for batman movies is because it's the only character that makes money, they have no choice. In the movie business the only thing that matter is making money at the box office, it doesnt matter whether the movie is good or bad, the only thing that matters is money.

 

Yes they are milking batman, why do you want them to do?, he is the only one that people will spend money for, the only one that translate for them.


24gvaiu.jpg


#27 Kazekage

Kazekage

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,305 posts

Posted 15 September 2014 - 08:08 AM

i dont think you got what i said. The reason why they keep going for batman movies is because it's the only character that makes money, they have no choice. In the movie business the only thing that matter is making money at the box office, it doesnt matter whether the movie is good or bad, the only thing that matters is money.

 

Yes they are milking batman, why do you want them to do?, he is the only one that people will spend money for, the only one that translate for them.

 

 

I wasn't responding to you, specifically, more at the general topic of Batman. 

We are both saying the same thing: Batman worked, as in he made them a lot of money, hence why they are putting out more and more Batman stuff even when they don't really have any story to tell with him. 

What I want them to do is put out a good product and put more of their characters out there: Arrow was well recieved,  Flash and Constantine are getting a lot of hype and Titans, Supergirl and Captain Marvel/Shazam movies are a good sign that WB/DC is finally branching out. They are slowly moving out of being dependant on the Bat but not completely yet.
If something fails then that means something failed on some level either story telling, marketing, etc, etc, meaning that it's something that needs to be fixed.  Always

falling back on the 'safe option' isn't going to work.  I mean, hell, Guardians of the Galaxy a bunch of nobodies in the Marvel comic world whom me and most others wouldn't have been able to recognize from a line up went on to become the 3rd highest grossing Marvel movie behind Avengers and IM3 and got freaking Al Pacino interested in working for the company. 

Tl;dr: WB/DC needs to get their shit together, and they slowly are but there is still a lot of room for improvement for them. 


  • Raiden and garlyle like this

#28 garlyle

garlyle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 564 posts
  • LocationNestled in the comfortable embrace of darkness

Posted 15 September 2014 - 11:46 AM

DC makes terrible business decisions. That is just the bottom line. Look at the New 52. Those stories have given them almost nowhere to go when it comes to TV and Movies. The creators were unable to make something truly great because of constant editorial interference and entire characters were squandered.  I loved the first season of Arrow, detested the second, and am truly hoping I like the third.

 

The flash is a character that has such depth, and such an engaging rogues gallery; it should absolutely be the next hit. I just don't see the team responsible, who seems to love 'grittifying' for lack of a better term, allowing all of these characters like 'Weather Wizard', 'Captain Cold', 'Mirror Master', 'The Trickster', ect, to be as goofy yet strangely dangerous as they are in the comics. That is where their charm comes from.

 

We don't even need to elaborate on Wonder Woman. That is a character who should have already had a sequel to her massively popular first movie. Joss Whedon, of all people, wasn't allowed to bring this character to life. DC's clearly sexist policies are keeping them from competing with Marvel, who I can assure you is already planning  Black Widow AND Captain Marvel movies. I really wish I could say that I'm looking forward to Gotham, Arrow, Flash, and Constantine, but I try not to lie. I WANT to like all of them, but I just don't see DC pulling it off. I would love to be proven wrong.


  • Kazekage likes this


#29 King Tai

King Tai

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,828 posts
  • LocationNeo Florida

Posted 15 September 2014 - 11:48 AM

I wasn't responding to you, specifically, more at the general topic of Batman. 
We are both saying the same thing: Batman worked, as in he made them a lot of money, hence why they are putting out more and more Batman stuff even when they don't really have any story to tell with him. 
What I want them to do is put out a good product and put more of their characters out there: Arrow was well recieved,  Flash and Constantine are getting a lot of hype and Titans, Supergirl and Captain Marvel/Shazam movies are a good sign that WB/DC is finally branching out. They are slowly moving out of being dependant on the Bat but not completely yet.
If something fails then that means something failed on some level either story telling, marketing, etc, etc, meaning that it's something that needs to be fixed.  Always
falling back on the 'safe option' isn't going to work.  I mean, hell, Guardians of the Galaxy a bunch of nobodies in the Marvel comic world whom me and most others wouldn't have been able to recognize from a line up went on to become the 3rd highest grossing Marvel movie behind Avengers and IM3 and got freaking Al Pacino interested in working for the company.  Tl;dr: WB/DC needs to get their shit together, and they slowly are but there is still a lot of room for improvement for them. 



yeah they need to get it together but I just can't help the thought that marvel had to show DC what to do to make a successful hero lineup movie, the process, how to build a story, everything...but thats just my opinion...

The_SHWANN_Universe_7_by_Shwann.jpg

 


#30 Kazekage

Kazekage

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,305 posts

Posted 15 September 2014 - 03:01 PM

yeah they need to get it together but I just can't help the thought that marvel had to show DC what to do to make a successful hero lineup movie, the process, how to build a story, everything...but thats just my opinion...

 

I have to agree with that. It's frustrating to see such incompetence despite this perfect and simple model being laid out right in front of everyone.  What's funny is that in 2004's JLA/Avengers cross over, it was pointed how Marvel was the darker universe and DC was the lighter one but now the roles are totally reversed.

The superhero movies have gone through a lot of trial and error to get where we are now. I recall that before the Avengers came out there was this mind set I encountered from the makers and fans of superhero movies that went something like: "unless you are a Raimi Spider-man movies, superhero movies must be dark, serious, realistic, not too funny, not too silly, costumes must not be too colourful and only major characters  get their shot (despite Blade being successful) at it because if you are funny and silly you get candy poop like Superman Returns, Spider-man 3, Fantastic Four and Green Lantern".  Then this new studio that's existed for barely a decade comes along, does a movie starring these bright colourful super heroes which most of the mainstream audience were even aware of and gleefully embraced the superhero concept and literally walks away with billions of dollars. 

Though to be fair, what Marvel did was totally unique and unheard of at the time so they essentially forced everyone to step up their game. 



#31 tenchu

tenchu

    Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,328 posts

Posted 15 September 2014 - 06:23 PM

I have to agree with that. It's frustrating to see such incompetence despite this perfect and simple model being laid out right in front of everyone.  What's funny is that in 2004's JLA/Avengers cross over, it was pointed how Marvel was the darker universe and DC was the lighter one but now the roles are totally reversed.

The superhero movies have gone through a lot of trial and error to get where we are now. I recall that before the Avengers came out there was this mind set I encountered from the makers and fans of superhero movies that went something like: "unless you are a Raimi Spider-man movies, superhero movies must be dark, serious, realistic, not too funny, not too silly, costumes must not be too colourful and only major characters  get their shot (despite Blade being successful) at it because if you are funny and silly you get candy poop like Superman Returns, Spider-man 3, Fantastic Four and Green Lantern".  Then this new studio that's existed for barely a decade comes along, does a movie starring these bright colourful super heroes which most of the mainstream audience were even aware of and gleefully embraced the superhero concept and literally walks away with billions of dollars. 

Though to be fair, what Marvel did was totally unique and unheard of at the time so they essentially forced everyone to step up their game. 

before avengers came out?, you mean before the first iron man came out. i think it was pretty clear that avengers was gonna be a hit at the box office following the success of iron man and the other movies, What was not clear was how big it turned out to be.

 

DC tried their colorfull movie with green lantern, it failed at the box office. Now why is that?


24gvaiu.jpg


#32 Kazekage

Kazekage

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,305 posts

Posted 15 September 2014 - 07:07 PM

before avengers came out?, you mean before the first iron man came out. i think it was pretty clear that avengers was gonna be a hit at the box office following the success of iron man and the other movies, What was not clear was how big it turned out to be.

 

DC tried their colorfull movie with green lantern, it failed at the box office. Now why is that?

 

Iron Man got the ball rolling but it was Avengers that proved to be the ultimate game changer. It cemented the cinematic universe and paved the way for movies like 'Days of the Future Past',  'Superman/Batman: Dawn of Justice', the Sinister Six and hell even Universal wants to set up their monster movie franchise using the Avengers formula. 

Avengers was a huge gamble, if it failed the whole cinematic universe, the other franchises and the studio itself would have fallen apart. In the time leading up to it, we all felt that there was a good chance that this could bomb but it ended up exceeding our expectations. 

Maybe because the execution wasn't right? Maybe people didn't like the story? I dunno. I haven't seen Green Lantern yet. I love the Green Lantern comics but the movie looked dumb with the CGI costumes and Hal came across as bland in the trailers so I made the wise decision to avoid it. Maybe one day, I will watch it on a slow night and see if there was anything good or salvageable about it, right now I don't have anything more than second hand sources to share with you.



#33 tenchu

tenchu

    Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,328 posts

Posted 15 September 2014 - 07:32 PM

Iron Man got the ball rolling but it was Avengers that proved to be the ultimate game changer. It cemented the cinematic universe and paved the way for movies like 'Days of the Future Past',  'Superman/Batman: Dawn of Justice', the Sinister Six and hell even Universal wants to set up their monster movie franchise using the Avengers formula. 

Avengers was a huge gamble, if it failed the whole cinematic universe, the other franchises and the studio itself would have fallen apart. In the time leading up to it, we all felt that there was a good chance that this could bomb but it ended up exceeding our expectations. 

Maybe because the execution wasn't right? Maybe people didn't like the story? I dunno. I haven't seen Green Lantern yet. I love the Green Lantern comics but the movie looked dumb with the CGI costumes and Hal came across as bland in the trailers so I made the wise decision to avoid it. Maybe one day, I will watch it on a slow night and see if there was anything good or salvageable about it, right now I don't have anything more than second hand sources to share with you.

What in the world are you talking about? Paved the way for what? Investment on comic book movies? I really dont get where you are going with this

these are just the DC movies that have come out since 2000. Spiderman franchise success was the one who really changed everything

 

  The Dark Knight WB $533,345,358 -7/18/08

2 The Dark Knight Rises WB $448,139,099 - 7/20/12

3 Man of Steel WB $291,045,518 - 6/14/13                

5 Batman Begins WB $205,343,774 - 6/15/05

6 Superman Returns WB $200,081,192 - 6/28/06                                            

10 Green Lantern WB $116,601,172 - 6/17/11                

12 Watchmen WB $107,509,799 - 3/6/09                

14 Red Sum. $90,380,162 - 10/15/10

15 Constantine WB $75,976,178 - 2/18/05

16 V for Vendetta WB $70,511,035 - 3/17/06                

18 Red 2 LG/S $53,262,560 - 7/19/13

19 Catwoman WB $40,202,379 - 7/23/04

20 The Losers WB $23,591,432 - 4/23/10                

23 Jonah Hex WB $10,547,117 - 6/18/10

 

And if Avengers would had bombed, Marvel studio is own by disney, so it wasnt going bankupt


Edited by tenchu, 15 September 2014 - 07:43 PM.

  • DarkNemesis likes this

24gvaiu.jpg


#34 garlyle

garlyle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 564 posts
  • LocationNestled in the comfortable embrace of darkness

Posted 15 September 2014 - 09:46 PM

Green Lantern was terrible because instead of having the courage to present the genre defining material Geoff Johns spent the better part of a decade creating, the team responsible pulled scattered bits and pieces together, failed to give the film a consistent tone, shoehorned a terribly unneeded love interest into, picked perhaps the most obscure and least accessible villain out of Green Lantern's rogue gallery, Hector Hammond, made OA look like a fraggle rock set built buy Fred Flinstone and his crew, and made the winning choice of having the final battle be fought against a giant cloud (because that ALWAYS works) and didn't even HINT at there being other corps until the teaser for the 'next film'. Green Lantern is the perfect example of what happens when the studio calls the shots and not the writers.



#35 Narubi

Narubi

    Forever Dreaming

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,049 posts
  • LocationSitting alone in the dark, and contemplating life.

Posted 16 September 2014 - 04:02 AM


made OA look like a fraggle rock set built buy Fred Flinstone and his crew

 

Yeah, that's something I didn't like at all.

Oa wasn't really technological at all, like in the comics, really it just looked like a mountainous wasteland with a bunch of mystical green energies an sprites about, led by weird Blue Dudes sitting at the top of some rocky pillars.

 

An the Corps themselves, were rather non existent or important, which was lame.

 

Lot of things could have been done better in that film. 


  • garlyle likes this
Show me the way to go home - I'm tired and I want to go to bed
I had a little drink about an hour ago - And it’s gone right to my head
Wherever I may roam - On land or sea or foam
You can always hear me singing this song
Show me the way to go home.

#36 Kazekage

Kazekage

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,305 posts

Posted 16 September 2014 - 04:04 AM

What in the world are you talking about? Paved the way for what? Investment on comic book movies? I really dont get where you are going with this

these are just the DC movies that have come out since 2000. Spiderman franchise success was the one who really changed everything

 

And if Avengers would had bombed, Marvel studio is own by disney, so it wasnt going bankupt

 

As I mentioned in the post: shared cinematic universes and huge cross overs like DoFP, Sup vs Bat, Universal's Monster movie Cinematic Universe, The Amazing Spider-man 2 building up to a Sinister Six movie, etc, etc.  All happened in response to the success of the Avengers. If Avengers had bombed we would be barely hearing anything about Marvel Studio's now. 

It wasn't Spider-man that changed every but it did play it's part. It was the Blade movies that showed the viability of the superhero movie genre after the failure of 'Batman and Robin' and after Blade, it was the X-Men and that lead to Spider-man and Fantastic Four. Behind the scenes, Marvel was going bankrupt so they were licensing out their properties to different studio's to make movies.  

So Mr. tenchu, what are you talking about?  What are you trying to prove?  



#37 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,931 posts

Posted 16 September 2014 - 10:34 AM

Actually Batman and Batman Returns showed that comic book movies were viable sources of revenue/profit. Then the Spider-Mans and X-Mens took it to the next level. This phase (new next level) of CBMs was lead by Iron Man and solidified by the Avengers.


Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#38 Kazekage

Kazekage

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,305 posts

Posted 16 September 2014 - 12:02 PM

Actually Batman and Batman Returns showed that comic book movies were viable sources of revenue/profit. Then the Spider-Mans and X-Mens took it to the next level. This phase (new next level) of CBMs was lead by Iron Man and solidified by the Avengers.

 

Yes, '89 Batman showed Hollywood the idea of adapting properties with built in audiences and using that hype to make the pre-movie release period an event in of itself.  Also showed the mainstream audiences, for many of whom Christopher Reeve was Superman, Batman was Adam West and Lynda Carter was Wonder Woman that you can have different actors take up these characters and do completely different takes on those characters. 

But the catastrophic failure of 'Batman and Robin' nearly killed the genre. It was Blade and X-Men that showed that the superhero genre was still viable and breathed new life into it.  



 



#39 Acidrain

Acidrain

    Chatbox Turtle Hermit

  • Chatbox Moderators
  • 827 posts
  • Locationunder a sea of blankets

Posted 17 September 2014 - 09:48 PM

SO I have some pretty great news. Apparently there is going to be a digital mini series leading up to the Justice League: Gods and Monsters film called "Justice League: Gods and Monsters Chronicles", spearheaded by machinima and...get this, Bruce Timm himself, as well as Alan Burnett, another producer on Batman: The Animated Series. So it turns out the rumors about getting more animated Bruce Timm stuff pertaining to a new justice league movie werent completely unfounded.

 

With that said, im pretty excited.

 

http://www.comingsoo...s.php?id=123052


  • Kazekage, Raiden, garlyle and 1 other like this

2uh96kn.jpg

Spoiler

#40 Kazekage

Kazekage

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,305 posts

Posted 18 September 2014 - 04:03 PM

With Bruce Timm and Alan Burnett back in the saddle, it will be interesting to see how this turns out. 

Also, Zack Snyder (Director of Superman/Batman) and J.J Abrams (Director of Star Wars) have been getting into a hilarious non-serious twitter war with each other: 
Link 1
BtRI0EpCEAAJBKu.jpg

 

Bta-iJoCYAA2wjj.jpg

 

BuCzEkRIUAAus_m.jpg

 

 

Buho829CMAAqT5Y.jpg

 

NONE of these images are fan made, these are the actual directors of multi billion dollar franchises having fun and generating publicity for their movies.


  • DarkNemesis, King Tai and Darthwin like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users