Sure, they'll keep trying, but what they try will be different than what we want. We're talking about some of the more obscure characters, a deep universe, etc... If they fail they're going to get conservative and do Batman, Superman, Flash, maybe Green Lantern. Even Rebirth on the comics side seems to hint toward them becoming risk averse, and that's in a medium where selling ~50,000 is good enough. Without some major successes our hopes of seeing our favorite C and D tier characters on film goes out the window. I'm not arguing that I want them to play it safe, but that's what I think they are more likely to do if their current strategy doesn't start netting them clear and major wins.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
DC Cinematic Universe |OT| Superfriends with Benefits
- Thread starter Penguin
- Start date
- Status
Sure, they'll keep trying, but what they try will be different than what we want. We're talking about some of the more obscure characters, a deep universe, etc... If they fail they're going to get conservative and do Batman, Superman, Flash, maybe Green Lantern. Even Rebirth on the comics side seems to hint toward them becoming risk averse, and that's in a medium where selling ~50,000 is good enough. Without some major successes our hopes of seeing our favorite C and D tier characters on film goes out the window. I'm not arguing that I want them to play it safe, but that's what I think they are more likely to do if their current strategy doesn't start netting them clear and major wins.
unholyrevenger72
Banned
Cuz Fox has the rights to all the good Marvel Villains.
They won't for a good while at least.
Warner Bros. needs franchises. Right now they have very few. Harry Potter is finally returning, but aside from that, they have limited options. The DC movies help with their other lines so they're not going to shelve them if a few movies don't perform to expectations. They know they can hit it bigger with these movies than original productions, especially in an era where corporations prey on fans as much as we do now. Besides, this is all a bit premature since Man of Steel made a healthy profit, and so will BvS despite it disappointing.
The upcoming movies like Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman aren't going to be like these movies. Even Justice League was already said to be more lighthearted, and the real problem here is people are projecting Zack Snyder everywhere when he's not making every movie. They've clearly stated several times that the other filmmakers are driving their own movies, but simply fitting them into this universe creatively.
Personally, I do understand this sentiment. Folks watch comic book movies for escapism. That's what Marvel is, and that's what most big budget action movies are. They're filled with humour, lightheartedness, and elements that don't make you uncomfortable or tax you mentally. People don't go to these movies to ponder any themes. If they did, they'd realize pretty quickly that Captain America is a caricature of a charater, but we love him nonetheless. Their purpose is to entertain, and there's nothing wrong with that. You see it often on here too. You either play to that crowd or you don't.
But if you go down that road, you don't get a movie like The Dark Knight. It still has certain elements of that formula in there, but it's designed in a very different way than Jurassic World, Transformers, MCU, and various other big budget movies that follow a certain storytelling formula.
I really don't want Warner Bros. to go down that route. I already have the Marvel movies. I have Fox who is doing a pretty nice balancing act. For me, WB needs to be on the experimental and unconventional side. Not the best strategy in terms of money making, but it certainly is from a creative perspective. And you can still make money as long as you nail the movie. Maybe not as much as the other way, but you won't be running hungry. That's for sure.
At worst, what happens is they "fail" for ten years. Then they'll take a short break, and reboot and give you what you want. But at least them let try and fail if they must. There's nothing wrong with a filmmaker driven strategy. You could end up with something really different and great that way.
I've seen enough movies with the conventional Hollywood formula, and none of them tend to be better than what I've watched decades ago. It's very rare you get a movie like The Dark Knight or Mad Max or The Matrix that you can expect to be talked about a few decades from now because they're classics for their genre. You don't get those kind of movies by playing to formula. You'll get movies which are entertaining, but not really any better than past movies like Terminator 2 or Predator or Aliens. That formula already reached its apex long ago.
I wonder if Suicide Squad is coming too early in the DCCU cycle. It's only their third movie and it's a risky one with a lot of unknowns (to the general public). I mean, think about all the movies Marvel put out before their first risky one (GotG):
Iron Man
Incredible Hulk
Iron Man 2
Thor
Captain America
Avengers
Iron Man 3
Thor 2
Captain America 2
By this time, people knew to just trust Marvel; that if it's one of their movies, they would probably like it. For this one, even if Suicide Squad is great (and it's looking very possible), the only previous movies in the same universe are MoS and BvS, two movies with very mixed opinions.
Part of me just wonders if it should have been a movie released a little later in the cycle, after we got a few more more critically-acclaimed movies with some of the bigger DC characters.
Just thinking out loud.
Iron Man
Incredible Hulk
Iron Man 2
Thor
Captain America
Avengers
Iron Man 3
Thor 2
Captain America 2
By this time, people knew to just trust Marvel; that if it's one of their movies, they would probably like it. For this one, even if Suicide Squad is great (and it's looking very possible), the only previous movies in the same universe are MoS and BvS, two movies with very mixed opinions.
Part of me just wonders if it should have been a movie released a little later in the cycle, after we got a few more more critically-acclaimed movies with some of the bigger DC characters.
Just thinking out loud.
DecoReturns
Member
It's got Will Smith, Joker and Batman.
Not really much risk per say. I think the trailers have made a positive response to The movie
Nah, I dont think it works like that. I think Guardians and Deadpool succeeding opens that well for any somewhat unknown comic movie now. So long as the film itself is good, I think the public is just flat out willing to take those chances now.
I'm not so sure the public was ever averse to it to begin with. Those old Blade movies weren't billion dollar makers, but I think they did okay'ish.
The general public has never been averse to anything. This seems to be a mostly fan thing on the internet where folks seem to harp on about brand a little too much. It certainly helps, but it doesn't mean any movie can't be a success if the marketing and word of mouth is there. You mentioned Blade, and that did pretty well for its time, and it's important to note that it's not a family friendly movie which restricts its audience.
Every big franchise that you see today got its start somewhere. When you have movies like Star Wars, Batman, Predator, Terminator, The Matrix, all being hits in their time, it's evidence enough. Star Wars alone should be evidence enough, and that was four decades ago. I know a lot of GAF skews young, but that movie was pretty weird in its time for the mass audience. It also wasn't some massive critical hit, but none of that stopped it from being a huge commercial success. That all happened, and it happened long before a couple of recent movies like Deadpool. These movies today have it a little easier if anything because they can rely on special effects far more as well as big international markets.
KonradLaw
Member
Yeah. People act like DC was created with MoS. Rebooting the continuity doesn't do anything to erase the brand's power. Batman and Joker are huge brands. It's not Marvel, that had no-names as their heroes and had to start from scratch. WB has been building Batman's awerness in cinemas since Burton's take.
Throw in some really well known actors and a big star like Will Smith in the middle and "risky" is the last word that should describe Suicide Squad.
Very interesting. Thanks guys. Seems like this will be a pretty sure success then.
Jables Swan
Member
You're telling me you don't think Iron Man was "risky"? Shit, Thor and Avengers are "risky".
evil solrac v3.0
Member
It had Robert Downey Jr.
That's true, but it's also true that movie studios are becoming less fond of taking risks, which is why we see so many sequels, reboots, and movies based on established franchises. When they do so the budgets tend to be lower, which can be difficult for comic book movies. A studio usually wants to know that there is likely a built in audience before dropping $180 million on a movie. Would I personally like to see studios take more risks? Sure. I don't really care if Disney, WB, Universal, etc... make or lose money as a whole, but they sure do care about that and it seems to me that they're becoming more and more focused on what they see as sure things.
The Russo brothers seem to agree that shaking things up and not sticking to a formula is a good thing for a film franchise:
Why Marvel Movies As We Know Them Need To Change, According To Civil War's Directors
Why Marvel Movies As We Know Them Need To Change, According To Civil War's Directors
Alternative title: Russos throw Whedon under the bus
*not found in evidence
Didn't help Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.
I'd say Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk were the only risky Marvel films, because after that, the juggernaut conglomerate that is Disney took over. They know how to make successful films. Say whatever you want about the quality, but even with a franchise like Thor, they can reach out to the masses.
They've already devolved the standard template a bit in Civil War
[Generic Civil War spoilers: no details just general structure might ruin a bit of the surprise though]
Civil war doesn't really have the massive spectacular 3rd act explosionathon. The main set pieces are earlier, the final act is more self contained and personal.
No, it's not a double-edge sword. If they bench it... they bench it? So what? What I'm saying is, if everyone makes the same sort of superhero movie, it's boring and lame. If the choice is between having a safe and predictable Superman and Batman movie consistently every 2-3 years or having ones which feel very different and possibly even bad every 5-6 years instead, I'll take the latter every time. People are getting worried over nothing. It's not like anyone will ever say "let's never make a DC movie again!" when they own the franchise.
I can see your points, and I'm not dooming and glooming, but we know that Warner has in the past been more than willing to bench these franchises for a few years (or in Superman's case nearly 2 decades) and was hoping some early megahits to keep the train rolling.
I'm certain everything up until JL 2 is safe
Kenzodielocke
Banned
So many people want him to play now, but none more than The Question.
I said it as a joke, but Andrew Garfield wouldn't be a half-bad choice for Jason Todd
Major Gripex
Member
If he wasn't supposedly playing a good guy I'd say he'd make an awesome Two-Face. My guess is Martian Man Hunter.
Ooooh I like that.
Dafoe has been in interesting projects for the last few years. It's funny to see him be in something schlocky like John Wick and then go do some weird stuff with Wes Anderson. I wonder what he'll be. This cast though, it's going to be awesome seeing so many recognizable faces in JL.
Schweinehund
Member
Creepy ass motherfucker. We are Raimi-verse now. I still want him to direct Shazam or Superman though.
Guessing DaFoe is either a super villain or a recurring supporting character. He's not so prominent that he'd turn down a multi contract film, but he's old enough now (60) that I doubt he'd do much action.
I think he'd be a good Desaad or Max Lord.
edit: Oh a good guy? Hmmmmm... That's a lot harder. The league doesn't have very many supporting members that aren't super heroes and I doubt he's Snapper Carr
. I'm guessing some military figure that wants to help the heroes out.I'm surprised there are no latino super heroes from either camp yet. They could bend Shazam just to make him a little more different from Superman, but it looks like the best chance for Jaime is a teen titans movie.
L
Lord Virgin
Unconfirmed Member
Can we have Ryan Gosling and Idris Alba as the Green Lanterns? Buddy cop space movie with those two please.
Oooh, I like this.
And James Franco.
johnnydrama
Banned
James Franco is Hal Jordan innit
Schweinehund
Member
James Franco actually fits Hal pretty well.
plz no Seth Rogen as John Stewart
Why do you hate Hal so much?
Rogen as Kilowog....hmmmm
BadAss2961
Member
No Franco, pls.
Only if he gets Jimmy Olsen'd.
Only if he gets Jimmy Olsen'd.
Poodlestrike
Banned
He's dull.
Actually he's kind of got a similar problem to John Stewart and Bane (of all people) where they've got one* big story beat that everybody associates with them and the rest of their history is just dull as dishwater. Hal has Paradox, John has Mogo, Bane has Knightfall. The most interesting thing about Hal Jordan is Sinestro.
*This is actually unfair to Bane. Read Secret Six!
Kenzodielocke
Banned
Yeah, don't like Franco.
But I liked the idea of Gosling & Elba.
Have you guys following the marketing of The Nice Guys with Gosling & Crowe? It's pretty good.
But I liked the idea of Gosling & Elba.
Have you guys following the marketing of The Nice Guys with Gosling & Crowe? It's pretty good.
Hal's fun to watch though... Stewart is closer to Batman/Superman/Wonder Woman in how he presents himself. Hal/Flash dynamics are better than Stewart/Flash.
Especially if Geoff Johns is involved, his Rebirth/Sinestro Corps War/Blackest Knight were amazing.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Hal is very nearly as straight laced as John.
Only Lanterns worth reading/watching are Guy Gardner and Kyle Rayner. And Guy is only fun if he's suffering.
Umberto saying a huge superhero role has been cast and will be revealed at Comic Con Hall H.
It's not Marvel proper since they will probably be at D23. Maybe Fox/Sony, but maybe DC.
As a huge GL fan, I strongly disagree with both points!
It's not Marvel proper since they will probably be at D23. Maybe Fox/Sony, but maybe DC.
As a huge GL fan, I strongly disagree with both points!
ShemhazaiX
Member
Guys. What if Willem Dafoe is Hal Jordan.
It could totally happen in a world where Jason Momoa is Aquaman and Ezra Miller is Barry Allen.
It could totally happen in a world where Jason Momoa is Aquaman and Ezra Miller is Barry Allen.
As
Hah! That would be a spectacular cameo
Too scrawny looking, imo. Adult Jason Todd should be a bit stacked.
Well he does love lighting up green...
Seriously, why do you all hate Hal... I hate you all.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
nah, Hal has more stories than that. Emerald Dawn, time he quit the corps, when he came back and rebuilt the corps, fought Guy to be earth's Green lantern, Etc.
if Kyle is so great he'd be selling books and still be Earth's Green lantern.
Corpsepyre
Banned
Holy shit, Dafoe was part of that leak. Makes me wonder if the rest was spot on as well. I'm afraid.
What was the leak, without getting into spoiler territory?
- Status