So why can't DC catch up to Marvel in Hollywood?

[TMC]

http://realwrestlecrap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=display&thread=409505&page=1

I hope I am not the only one who has noticed that DC has seriously
fallen short of Marvel in the movie department. Not for the lack of
trying, but outside of the Batman movies DC has yet to have any
success on the levels Marvel has: Catwoman and Jonah Hex both bombed
flat out, Superman Returns, Watchmen, and Green Lantern didn't exactly
do badly but they all fell far short of expectations and got crucified
by critics. They are preparing a fresh round with plans for a Superman
relaunch and a Wonder Woman movie, but it is hard to feel optimistic
with their track record so far. So what gives?

I think part of it is timing: Marvel got a head start on DC in
Hollywood, so they have a monopoly on some of the best talent
available (actors, writers, directors, etc), and also DC waited so
long to get involved that people were already starting to burn out on
super-hero movies by the time they got in the game. But I also think
they have been trying a little too hard in some cases: they are
obviously eager to try to establish the kind of trilogies that Marvel
has created, but if you watch films like X-Men, Spider Man, or Iron
Man, they all could easily have been stand alone films but they were
successful enough to spawn sequels. With movies like Green Lantern, DC
has been obviously trying to set up the stage for more, and they end
up packing too much too fast into any one film.

I also think it might do DC some good to keep getting their feet wet
on the small screen; they had a great launching pad with Smallville. I
could easily envision a Buffy-esque series about Nightwing. And I
recall hearing that HBO was briefly interested in making The Watchmen
into a mini-series, which I think would have suited the story much
better since it could have been told in its disjointed fashion more
easily that way.

Any other theories?

[Duggy]

http://realwrestlecrap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=...
I hope I am not the only one who has noticed that DC has seriously
fallen short of Marvel in the movie department.

No. It's old news.

It used to be the other way around.

Then Warner started to see DC as a source for licensed properties that
they owned and could do with what they wanted and Avi Arad took
control of Marvel licensing and stopped Marvel's old practise of just
selling to anyone and letting them do what they want and started to
get approval of the final product.

Licensing to Fox, Sony, distributing their own stuff through Paramount
certainly helped vs Warner Bros doing all the DC stuff.

Some of that may change now Disney owns Marvel.

===
= DUG.
===

[Bill Steele]

Post by Duggy
No. It's old news.
It used to be the other way around.
Then Warner started to see DC as a source for licensed properties that
they owned and could do with what they wanted and Avi Arad took
control of Marvel licensing and stopped Marvel's old practise of just
selling to anyone and letting them do what they want and started to
get approval of the final product.

I think that's the key. Marvel-based films generally stick closer to the
original concepts, while DC lets the producers run loose. It goes all
the way back to animated flying Superman, campy Batman and spinning
Wonder Woman and on up to telekinetic Zod. (nobody's perfect: there's
also Fugitive Hulk and defrocked Thor.)

If there's an underlying principle it might be that Marvel is mostly
about character and DC is mostly about powers.

[Duggy]

Post by Bill Steele

No.  It's old news.
It used to be the other way around.
Then Warner started to see DC as a source for licensed properties that
they owned and could do with what they wanted and Avi Arad took
control of Marvel licensing and stopped Marvel's old practise of just
selling to anyone and letting them do what they want and started to
get approval of the final product.

I think that's the key. Marvel-based films generally stick closer to the
original concepts, while DC lets the producers run loose.  It goes all
the way back to animated flying Superman, campy Batman and spinning
Wonder Woman and on up to telekinetic Zod.

All very successful.

Post by Bill Steele
(nobody's perfect: there's
also Fugitive Hulk

Again very successful.

Are you saying that not following the comics is a good thing.

Post by Bill Steele
and defrocked Thor.)

OK.

Post by Bill Steele
If there's an underlying principle it might be that Marvel is mostly
about character and DC is mostly about powers.

Superman Returns was too much about character the wrong way.

===
= DUG.
===

[Bill Steele]

Post by Duggy

Post by Bill Steele
I think that's the key. Marvel-based films generally stick closer to the

Post by Bill Steele
original concepts, while DC lets the producers run loose. It goes all
the way back to animated flying Superman, campy Batman and spinning
Wonder Woman and on up to telekinetic Zod.

All very successful.

Depends whether we're talking about financial or artistic success. I'm
not sure now which the OP was addressing. When I saw the subject line I
thought it was about how Marvel made "better movies." Looking back, I
think it was really about boxoffice success, so you have a point.

I will still argue, though, that the best road to success is not to
acquire the rights to something that has been successful and then change
it.

[Duggy]

Post by Bill Steele

Post by Duggy

Post by Bill Steele
I think that's the key. Marvel-based films generally stick closer to the

 original concepts, while DC lets the producers run loose.  It goes all
 the way back to animated flying Superman, campy Batman and spinning
 Wonder Woman and on up to telekinetic Zod.

All very successful.

Depends whether we're talking about financial or artistic success. I'm
not sure now which the OP was addressing. When I saw the subject line I
thought it was about how Marvel made "better movies." Looking back, I
think it was really about boxoffice success, so you have a point.

Box Office success is (partially) chartable.
Artistic success is subjective.

Post by Bill Steele
I will still argue, though, that the best road to success is not to
acquire the rights to something that has been successful and then change
it.

I hate changes to things (beyond things that need to be changed for
the media).

A lot of times it leads to failure, but there have been some massive
successes even with major changes that shit on the original product...
so there is no rule.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ken from Chicago]

Post by Duggy

Post by Bill Steele

Post by Duggy

Post by Bill Steele
I think that's the key. Marvel-based films generally stick closer to the

Post by Bill Steele
original concepts, while DC lets the producers run loose. It goes all
the way back to animated flying Superman, campy Batman and spinning
Wonder Woman and on up to telekinetic Zod.

All very successful.

Depends whether we're talking about financial or artistic success. I'm
not sure now which the OP was addressing. When I saw the subject line I
thought it was about how Marvel made "better movies." Looking back, I
think it was really about boxoffice success, so you have a point.

Box Office success is (partially) chartable.
Artistic success is subjective.

Critical success is (partially) chartable, ala Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritics,
Yahoo!Movies reviews that aggregate and average out critics ratings and
separately audience ratings.

Post by Duggy

Post by Bill Steele
I will still argue, though, that the best road to success is not to
acquire the rights to something that has been successful and then change
it.

I hate changes to things (beyond things that need to be changed for
the media).

Comic book adaptations are special--especially of the Big Two, because often
the character in question has such a lengthy, decades-long, history that
there's no way to even to begin to capture in a movie or even a trilogy.
Moreover there are often conflicting stories as different writers come and
go, or even having the character regularly appear in a team book and whose
portrayal differs from their own title(s). At some point an adaptation has
to pick and choose--and sometimes that can be a very good thing.

For example, I liked the Cap America adaptation, plus the changes making
Bucky an adult, and even getting into the army BEFORE Steve does. That was
some great creative alteration. Plus making Cap part of a USO show (which I
and most comic book fans cringed at hearing about in 2010) totally worked
and explained the various uniforms.

Post by Duggy
A lot of times it leads to failure, but there have been some massive
successes even with major changes that shit on the original product...
so there is no rule.
===
= DUG.
===

That's why I argue for prose adaptation, read the book AFTER the movie. You
can have a good or even great movie--that's a bad adaptation. While reading
the book afterwards, adds backstory to the movie, while the movie
illustrates the book for you--which if you did in reverse, can ruin the
movie because you envisioned certain characters and scenes differently.

-- Ken from Chicago

[Duggy]

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by Duggy
Box Office success is (partially) chartable.
Artistic success is subjective.

Critical success is (partially) chartable, ala Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritics,
Yahoo!Movies reviews that aggregate and average out critics ratings and
separately audience ratings.

Sure. But people will still argue the point.

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by Duggy
I hate changes to things (beyond things that need to be changed for
the media).

Comic book adaptations are special--especially of the Big Two, because often
the character in question has such a lengthy, decades-long, history that
there's no way to even to begin to capture in a movie or even a trilogy.

I'm fine with the movie of an ongoing comic not covering an exact
story or exact history.

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by Duggy
A lot of times it leads to failure, but there have been some massive
successes even with major changes that shit on the original product...
so there is no rule.

That's why I argue for prose adaptation, read the book AFTER the movie. You
can have a good or even great movie--that's a bad adaptation. While reading
the book afterwards, adds backstory to the movie, while the movie
illustrates the book for you--which if you did in reverse, can ruin the
movie because you envisioned certain characters and scenes differently.

I disagree. Reading a book after the movie can taint a book... make
you see the actor no imagine the character as written.

===
= DUG.
===

[Bill Steele]

Post by Duggy
A lot of times it leads to failure, but there have been some massive
successes even with major changes that shit on the original product...
so there is no rule.

Indeed. Classic examples would be Tarzan and the radio versioin of The
Shadow. Tremendous financial successes but fans were pissed. OTOH,
Spiderman and Suprman (mostly) satisfied both sides: a consumation
devoutly to be wished.

[Duggy]

Post by Bill Steele

Post by Duggy
A lot of times it leads to failure, but there have been some massive
successes even with major changes that shit on the original product...
so there is no rule.

Indeed. Classic examples would be Tarzan and the radio versioin of The
Shadow. Tremendous financial successes but fans were pissed. OTOH,
Spiderman and Suprman (mostly) satisfied both sides: a consumation
devoutly to be wished.

Agreed.

===
= DUG.
===

[Tim Turnip]

Post by Bill Steele

Post by Duggy
No. It's old news.
It used to be the other way around.
Then Warner started to see DC as a source for licensed properties that
they owned and could do with what they wanted and Avi Arad took
control of Marvel licensing and stopped Marvel's old practise of just
selling to anyone and letting them do what they want and started to
get approval of the final product.

I think that's the key. Marvel-based films generally stick closer to the
original concepts, while DC lets the producers run loose. It goes all
the way back to animated flying Superman, campy Batman and spinning
Wonder Woman and on up to telekinetic Zod. (nobody's perfect: there's
also Fugitive Hulk and defrocked Thor.)
If there's an underlying principle it might be that Marvel is mostly
about character and DC is mostly about powers.

That's getting close to my theory, which is that the sensibility of
DC's characters is primarily derived from the 1940s, while Marvels' is
of the 1960s; hence closer to home, semiotically, and easier to
translate. (This is despite the fact that this past year, Marvel's
big movie was of a '40s character while DC's was of a '60s character;
both were exceptions that prove the rule.)

[Kenneth M. Lin]

Marvel had a lot of stinkers and just got lucky last year with three hits.
All the Punisher movies were awful. Fantastic Four had nothing to write
home about. Even the last Spider-Man movie was extremely lackluster to the
point that they had to relaunch the franchise. And let's not talk about The
Man-Thing.

The Amazing Spider-Man could suck big time. I just can't picture Peter
Parker looking so pretty as the guy they hired.

[T987654321]

DC only has three big names

Superman - lots of films out, they need a new villan

Batman - doing big bucks

Wonder Woman - this I don't get, why has it been so hard to get what
would be a slam dunk hit out?


DC hasn't done much to promote thier second tier and the GL movie
didn't help.

[Duggy]

Post by T987654321
Wonder Woman - this I don't get, why has it been so hard to get what
would be a slam dunk hit out?

Because the longer the Amazon bit is the slower the film will feel and
the rest is girl-Superman.

Post by T987654321
DC hasn't done much to promote thier second tier and the GL movie
didn't help.

But what was wrong with the GL film from the POV we're talking about?

It seems to me it was pretty much "put the basics of the comic origin
on screen and make fight a villain".

These are things things that people are saying is why Wonder Woman and
Superman should be easy to make.

But there's more than a good basic idea to make an enjoyable film.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ken from Chicago]

Post by Duggy

Post by T987654321
Wonder Woman - this I don't get, why has it been so hard to get what
would be a slam dunk hit out?

Because the longer the Amazon bit is the slower the film will feel and
the rest is girl-Superman.

No. The Amazon part can be just as if not more exciting.

FADE IN: Show the Amazons battling gods and monsters, showing how some
element or focus is sealed on Themyscira island. It would explain why the
Greek gods, titans and monsters no longer manifest around the planet.

FADE TO: A coliseum where a bedraggled-haired, barefoot slave in chains is
dragged out by a guard in polished Greek armor, to face a roaring crowd--and
a squadron of soldiers also in Greek armor. He's wearing a rough-hewn toga,
barely more than a potato sack, shield his eyes from the bright glaring
sun--when the guard spins around and attacks.

The slave dodges so that his chains are cut and he disarms the guard, takes
the sword as the squadron rushes him. After a few minutes, the battered,
bruised, bleeding slave stands victorious and wipes his brow of
sweat--revealing he is a woman--Diana. Just as another squadron of soldiers
fire a volley of arrows at her, which she deflects with the shackles on
wrists--and catching the final arrow in her hand.

The crowd erupts with a standing ovation when suddenly a two fighter planes
jet across the sky, only to explode--with a parachuted figure falling from
one of them. The guards and crowds start to head toward the figure floating
slowly down--with Diana leading the way sprinting to . . . Col. Steve
Trevor, Air Force.

Post by Duggy

Post by T987654321
DC hasn't done much to promote thier second tier and the GL movie
didn't help.

But what was wrong with the GL film from the POV we're talking about?
It seems to me it was pretty much "put the basics of the comic origin
on screen and make fight a villain".
These are things things that people are saying is why Wonder Woman and
Superman should be easy to make.
But there's more than a good basic idea to make an enjoyable film.
===
= DUG.
===

Steve would explain he was chasing some terrorist who had stolen a prototype
long-range fighter when the rogue plane simply disappeared in mid-air over
open water, when suddenly their island appeared and several flying creatures
got clogged in the rogue's intake causing him to explode and Steve barely
enough time to eject before his plane crashed into exploding plane.

The rest of the movie would be Diana showing off the island to him and
taking him back home to Man's World and touring the world outside their
island. Where Steve was a fish out of water on her island, Diana is a fish
out of water off the island--for comic, dramatic and even tragic results as
she discovers about celebrities, commercialism, politics, legalese and
poverty in the face of massive wealth--yet heartened to see people helping
the helpless, defending the weak against criminals, natural disasters or
disease.

While Diana is considering whether to return home, the finale would be
discovering, natch, some creatures had managed to follow them, ever so
slowly along the ocean's floor, back to the US coast. Of course Diana ends
up leading the fight against them.



See? Simple enough. Yet for 30 years big fat goose egg for WW movie.

-- Ken from Chicago

[Duggy]

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by Duggy
Because the longer the Amazon bit is the slower the film will feel and
the rest is girl-Superman.

No. The Amazon part can be just as if not more exciting.

I can be. For an Xena film or a Lost Islands of the Amazon film.

But no matter who exciting it is it's treading water until the real
film begins.

It's like the Pod Race in The Phantom Menace it was very exciting, but
it slowed the movie down which made it boring and annoying.


And the rest is girl Superman.

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by Duggy
But what was wrong with the GL film from the POV we're talking about?
It seems to me it was pretty much "put the basics of the comic origin
on screen and make fight a villain".
These are things things that people are saying is why Wonder Woman and
Superman should be easy to make.
But there's more than a good basic idea to make an enjoyable film.

There's more than a good basic idea to make an enjoyable film.

Post by Ken from Chicago
See? Simple enough. Yet for 30 years big fat goose egg for WW movie.

Green Lantern was a simple enough idea. People hated it.

===
= DUG.
===

[Captain Infinity]

Once Upon A Time,

Post by Duggy
It's like the Pod Race in The Phantom Menace it was very exciting, but
it slowed the movie down which made it boring and annoying.

The pod race was the only part of The Phantom Menace that wasn't boring and
annoying.


**
Captain Infinity

[Ken from Chicago]

Post by Captain Infinity
Once Upon A Time,

Post by Duggy
It's like the Pod Race in The Phantom Menace it was very exciting, but
it slowed the movie down which made it boring and annoying.

The pod race was the only part of The Phantom Menace that wasn't boring and
annoying.
**
Captain Infinity

You misspelled the final "3-way 2-bladed lightsaber duel"--that Lucas had
the least involvement with.

-- Ken from Chicago

[Mike Hall]

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by Captain Infinity
Once Upon A Time,

Post by Duggy
It's like the Pod Race in The Phantom Menace it was very exciting, but
it slowed the movie down which made it boring and annoying.

The pod race was the only part of The Phantom Menace that wasn't boring and
annoying.

You misspelled the final "3-way 2-bladed lightsaber duel"--that Lucas
had the least involvement with.

A duel is a two-way fight by definition, I believe. The pod race had
nothing to do with the creation of Jar Jar Binks, who killed the movie
single-handedly. Fast-forward through the Binks parts and you have a
pretty exciting Star Wars movie, even though the kid who plays young
Anakin can't act very well.

Fast forward to the Binks parts and you have a Rastafarian alien who is
hated by his people and is apparently stoned for several scenes, who
defeats an invading droid army by doing a prat-fall. He is then
considered a hero.

This probably has nothing to do with the OP but I just can't let go of
the hurt!


Mike Hall

[Bill Steele]

The pod race had nothing to do with the creation of Jar Jar Binks, who
killed the movie single-handedly. Fast-forward through the Binks parts
and you have a pretty exciting Star Wars movie, even though the kid who
plays young Anakin can't act very well.

Try substituting Smiley Burnette and Gene Autry in the above.

[Edward McArdle]

Post by Bill Steele

The pod race had nothing to do with the creation of Jar Jar Binks, who
killed the movie single-handedly. Fast-forward through the Binks parts
and you have a pretty exciting Star Wars movie, even though the kid who
plays young Anakin can't act very well.

Try substituting Smiley Burnette and Gene Autry in the above.

Good lord, you must be in my age range!
I have a classic serial in DVD, The Phantom Empire, bith in video and DVD.
Interestingly, the video is in "colour", the DVD is not, though I think
they may have produced a better version lately. I bought the DVD after
finding that videos don't last!

I think young Anakin and Jar-Jar are better actors than Gene Autry. The
lamppost outside my house is a better actor than Gene Autry.

[Super-Menace]

Post by Edward McArdle

Post by Bill Steele

The pod race had nothing to do with the creation of Jar Jar Binks, who
killed the movie single-handedly. Fast-forward through the Binks parts
and you have a pretty exciting Star Wars movie, even though the kid who
plays young Anakin can't act very well.

Try substituting Smiley Burnette and Gene Autry in the above.

Good lord, you must be in my age range!
I have a classic serial in DVD, The Phantom Empire, bith in video and DVD.
Interestingly, the video is in "colour", the DVD is not, though I think
they may have produced a better version lately. I bought the DVD after
finding that videos don't last!
I think young Anakin and Jar-Jar are better actors than Gene Autry. The
lamppost outside my house is a better actor than Gene Autry.

I *loved* The Phantom Empire. Radio Ranch! The Thunder Riders! "He
is speaking the language of the dead!"

Gene Autry never had to act. All he had to do was look stolid.

[Bill Steele]

Post by Edward McArdle

Post by Bill Steele

The pod race had nothing to do with the creation of Jar Jar Binks, who
killed the movie single-handedly. Fast-forward through the Binks parts
and you have a pretty exciting Star Wars movie, even though the kid who
plays young Anakin can't act very well.

Try substituting Smiley Burnette and Gene Autry in the above.

Good lord, you must be in my age range!

I probably am, but the movies are there for anyone to see today on
Encore Westerns.

Post by Edward McArdle
I have a classic serial in DVD, The Phantom Empire, bith in video and DVD.
Interestingly, the video is in "colour", the DVD is not, though I think
they may have produced a better version lately. I bought the DVD after
finding that videos don't last!
I think young Anakin and Jar-Jar are better actors than Gene Autry. The
lamppost outside my house is a better actor than Gene Autry.

The point is, Smiley and Jar-Jar were both comic relief introduced into
a place where people came to see action.

No offense to Smiley. He seems to have been a very smart and talented
guy and a decent musician, doing what the directors told him to do. He
had a bit more control over it than Jar-Jar, so it came out a bit better.

Shall we go into comparisons of Phantom Empire with Cowboys and Aliens?

[Captain Infinity]

Once Upon A Time,

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by Captain Infinity
The pod race was the only part of The Phantom Menace that wasn't boring
and annoying.

You misspelled the final "3-way 2-bladed lightsaber duel"--that Lucas had
the least involvement with.

I actually found that tedious. Too obviously choreographed.


**
Captain Infinity

[Duggy]

Post by Captain Infinity
Once Upon A Time,

Post by Duggy
It's like the Pod Race in The Phantom Menace it was very exciting, but
it slowed the movie down which made it boring and annoying.

The pod race was the only part of The Phantom Menace that wasn't boring and
annoying.

YMMV.

===
= DUG.
===

[Edward McArdle]

In article

Post by Duggy

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by Duggy
Because the longer the Amazon bit is the slower the film will feel and
the rest is girl-Superman.

No. The Amazon part can be just as if not more exciting.

I can be. For an Xena film or a Lost Islands of the Amazon film.
But no matter who exciting it is it's treading water until the real
film begins.
It's like the Pod Race in The Phantom Menace it was very exciting, but
it slowed the movie down which made it boring and annoying.
And the rest is girl Superman.

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by Duggy
But what was wrong with the GL film from the POV we're talking about?
It seems to me it was pretty much "put the basics of the comic origin
on screen and make fight a villain".
These are things things that people are saying is why Wonder Woman and
Superman should be easy to make.
But there's more than a good basic idea to make an enjoyable film.

There's more than a good basic idea to make an enjoyable film.

Post by Ken from Chicago
See? Simple enough. Yet for 30 years big fat goose egg for WW movie.

Green Lantern was a simple enough idea. People hated it.

Am I the only one in the world who enjoyed it?
But I agree that the plot for Wonder Woman is girl Superman. Or, Superman
in a bathing suit, which amazingly stays on through all the action.
Possibly care of retakes.

I suspect that for audiences to be interested, WW has to be in modern day
America, though we'd welcome her in Australia, if we had any
supervillains, or even really tall buildings. No, that's Spidey.

Another film which was messed up was Supergirl. If they had left out all
the crap about her being in the Phantom Zone (!!!) the middle of the film
wasn't too bad. And I think it still sells a few DVDs.

I think the problem with Superman, as with a couple of others such as
Flash, is that there isn't really any problem he can't solve immediately.
Off topic, when I saw Superman Returns my reaction was why make such a
short film, wherew hardly anything happened - and then discovered it had
run well over two hours! So it must certainly have held my interest.

[Bill Steele]

Post by Duggy

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by Duggy
Because the longer the Amazon bit is the slower the film will feel and
the rest is girl-Superman.

No. The Amazon part can be just as if not more exciting.

I can be. For an Xena film or a Lost Islands of the Amazon film.
But no matter who exciting it is it's treading water until the real
film begins.

Superman started off with a few minutes of Krypton, and that came off
OK. You have to set up Diana's reason for leaving the Island, and her
relationship with Steve.

Post by Duggy
It's like the Pod Race in The Phantom Menace it was very exciting, but
it slowed the movie down which made it boring and annoying.
And the rest is girl Superman.

Hopefully the rest is S&M fantasies.

Post by Duggy

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by Duggy
But what was wrong with the GL film from the POV we're talking about?
It seems to me it was pretty much "put the basics of the comic origin
on screen and make fight a villain".
These are things things that people are saying is why Wonder Woman and
Superman should be easy to make.
But there's more than a good basic idea to make an enjoyable film.

There's more than a good basic idea to make an enjoyable film.

Post by Ken from Chicago
See? Simple enough. Yet for 30 years big fat goose egg for WW movie.

Green Lantern was a simple enough idea. People hated it.

The trouble there was that DC had already added a ton of stuff to the
original simple idea.

[Duggy]

Post by Bill Steele
Superman started off with a few minutes of Krypton, and that came off
OK. You have to set up Diana's reason for leaving the Island, and her
relationship with Steve.

Yes... which would take more than a few minutes.

Post by Bill Steele

Green Lantern was a simple enough idea.  People hated it.

The trouble there was that DC had already added a ton of stuff to the
original simple idea.

Well that's bound to happen.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ken from Chicago]

Post by Duggy

Post by Bill Steele
Superman started off with a few minutes of Krypton, and that came off
OK. You have to set up Diana's reason for leaving the Island, and her
relationship with Steve.

Yes... which would take more than a few minutes.

Steve crashed his plane on Themyscira. Diana returned him home.

Post by Duggy

Post by Bill Steele

Post by Duggy
Green Lantern was a simple enough idea. People hated it.

The trouble there was that DC had already added a ton of stuff to the
original simple idea.

Well that's bound to happen.
===
= DUG.
===

True, that's comic books in general. Green Lantern has gone thru 3-5
universal reboots. And that's just with Hal Jordan.

-- Ken from Chicago

[Duggy]

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by Duggy
Yes... which would take more than a few minutes.

Steve crashed his plane on Themyscira. Diana returned him home.

And the contest for the Champion of the Amazons?

===
= DUG.
===

[Ken from Chicago]

Post by Duggy

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by Duggy
Yes... which would take more than a few minutes.

Steve crashed his plane on Themyscira. Diana returned him home.

And the contest for the Champion of the Amazons?
===
= DUG.
===

Unnecessary. We know who'd win. That's why I simply in my suggested outline
feature Diana versus a squadron of Amazons, which would be revealed as
simply entertainment for the Amazons and her mother.

She'd be introduced as the best Amazon warriors, and as Princess to the
throne, would be the chosen delegate to escort Steve back home--and act as
diplomat to Man's World.

-- Ken from Chicago

[Bill Steele]

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by Duggy

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by Duggy
Yes... which would take more than a few minutes.

Steve crashed his plane on Themyscira. Diana returned him home.

And the contest for the Champion of the Amazons?
===
= DUG.
===

Unnecessary. We know who'd win. That's why I simply in my suggested
outline feature Diana versus a squadron of Amazons, which would be
revealed as simply entertainment for the Amazons and her mother.
She'd be introduced as the best Amazon warriors, and as Princess to the
throne, would be the chosen delegate to escort Steve back home--and act
as diplomat to Man's World.

No, we've got to keep the idea that she defied her mother.

None of it would take longer than the Krypton/growing up in Smallville
segment of Superman.

[Duggy]

Post by Bill Steele
No, we've got to keep the idea that she defied her mother.
None of it would take longer than the Krypton/growing up in Smallville
segment of Superman.

It would take longer than the Krypton bit and the growing up in
Smallville bit took too long.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by Duggy

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by Duggy
Yes... which would take more than a few minutes.

Steve crashed his plane on Themyscira. Diana returned him home.

And the contest for the Champion of the Amazons?

Unnecessary. We know who'd win.

Yes, but it's not the who'd we bit, it's the that she's banned from
competiting.

I'd hate to see it missing, but like the pod race - pointless action
with an obvious winner stops forward momentum of the story.

Post by Ken from Chicago
That's why I simply in my suggested outline
feature Diana versus a squadron of Amazons, which would be revealed as
simply entertainment for the Amazons and her mother.

Eh.

Post by Ken from Chicago
She'd be introduced as the best Amazon warriors, and as Princess to the
throne, would be the chosen delegate to escort Steve back home--and act as
diplomat to Man's World.

Drain all the interesting stuff out why don't you.

===
= DUG.
===

[Marcovaldo]

On Jan 10, 1:22 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net>
wrote:

(SNIP)

Pretty good, but you left out the most important element of the Wonder
Woman mythos: BONDAGE!

[The Loan Arranger]

"Marcovaldo" <***@hushmail.com> wrote in message news:390a076d-828e-438d-98e3-***@g41g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 10, 1:22 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net>
wrote:

(SNIP)

Pretty good, but you left out the most important element of the Wonder
Woman mythos: BONDAGE!

================================================
Linda Carter STILL looks hot but back in the day she was SMOKIN!

[Duggy]

Post by The Loan Arranger
================================================
Linda Carter STILL looks hot but back in the day she was SMOKIN!

Smoking isn't as cool as it once was.

===
= D

[Ken from Chicago]

Post by Marcovaldo
(SNIP)
Pretty good, but you left out the most important element of the Wonder
Woman mythos: BONDAGE!

I'm not going further than having her start out on gladiatorial contest in
chains--and that's mostly explain her skill deflecting projectiles with
bracelets.

-- Ken from Chicago

[SparkoHeaps]

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by Marcovaldo
(SNIP)
Pretty good, but you left out the most important element of the Wonder
Woman mythos: BONDAGE!

I'm not going further than having her start out on gladiatorial contest in
chains--and that's mostly explain her skill deflecting projectiles with
bracelets.
-- Ken from Chicago

So she's not tying anyone up with her magic lasso in your version?

[Marcovaldo]

Post by SparkoHeaps

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by Marcovaldo
(SNIP)
Pretty good, but you left out the most important element of the Wonder
Woman mythos: BONDAGE!

I'm not going further than having her start out on gladiatorial contest in
chains--and that's mostly explain her skill deflecting projectiles with
bracelets.
-- Ken from Chicago

So she's not tying anyone up with her magic lasso in your version

Bummer.

[Ken from Chicago]

Post by SparkoHeaps

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by Marcovaldo
(SNIP)
Pretty good, but you left out the most important element of the Wonder
Woman mythos: BONDAGE!

I'm not going further than having her start out on gladiatorial contest in
chains--and that's mostly explain her skill deflecting projectiles with
bracelets.
-- Ken from Chicago

So she's not tying anyone up with her magic lasso in your version?

I seriously doubt that's what Marcovaldo or most people are referring to.

-- Ken from Chicago

[Ken from Chicago]

Post by T987654321
DC only has three big names
Superman - lots of films out, they need a new villan

Brainiac
Metallo
Myxlpltk

Post by T987654321
Batman - doing big bucks
Wonder Woman - this I don't get, why has it been so hard to get what
would be a slam dunk hit out?

Totally agree.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/896ef286046b7184?hl=en

Post by T987654321
DC hasn't done much to promote thier second tier and the GL movie
didn't help.

-- Ken from Chicago

[Duggy]

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by T987654321
DC only has three big names
Superman - lots of films out, they need a new villan

Brainiac

Brainiac, like Hector Hammond is an ugly genius. They can seem lame
and silly unless done right.

Post by Ken from Chicago
Metallo

Can be good if done right. But can a film version challenge Superman?

Post by Ken from Chicago
Myxlpltk

Not filmic.

===
= DUG.
===

[Captain Infinity]

Once Upon A Time,

Post by Ken from Chicago
Myxlpltk

ITYM "Mxyzptlk".


**
Captain Infinity

[Bill Steele]

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by T987654321
DC only has three big names
Superman - lots of films out, they need a new villan

Brainiac
Metallo
Myxlpltk

I keep saying this: Atom Man from the radio show. I suppose no one in
Hollywood is old enough to remember.

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by T987654321
Batman - doing big bucks
Wonder Woman - this I don't get, why has it been so hard to get what
would be a slam dunk hit out?

Totally agree.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/896ef286046b7184?hl=en

Post by T987654321
DC hasn't done much to promote thier second tier and the GL movie
didn't help.

And there may lie the anseer to the original question. Marvel doesn't
really have "tiers."

[Ken Arromdee]

Post by Bill Steele
I keep saying this: Atom Man from the radio show. I suppose no one in
Hollywood is old enough to remember.

Atomic powered villains just don't have the resonance that they did back
then. Not to mention that the radio show version was a Nazi and those
really don't work as villains any more.

[Ken from Chicago]

Post by Ken Arromdee

Post by Bill Steele
I keep saying this: Atom Man from the radio show. I suppose no one in
Hollywood is old enough to remember.

Atomic powered villains just don't have the resonance that they did back
then. Not to mention that the radio show version was a Nazi and those
really don't work as villains any more.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
Obi-wan Kenobi: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
Yoda: "Do or do not. There is no 'try'."

No, Nazis can always work as villains. Behold:

-- Ken from Chicago

[Ken from Chicago]

Post by Bill Steele

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by T987654321
DC only has three big names
Superman - lots of films out, they need a new villan

Brainiac
Metallo
Myxlpltk

I keep saying this: Atom Man from the radio show. I suppose no one in
Hollywood is old enough to remember.

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by T987654321
Batman - doing big bucks
Wonder Woman - this I don't get, why has it been so hard to get what
would be a slam dunk hit out?

Totally agree.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/896ef286046b7184?hl=en

Post by T987654321
DC hasn't done much to promote thier second tier and the GL movie
didn't help.

And there may lie the anseer to the original question. Marvel doesn't
really have "tiers."

Actually they do:

Spider-Man, Hulk, X-Men, Iron-Man, Captain America, Bucky, Fantastic Four

Those are fairly widely-known characters in the mainstream, due in part to
various adapted live-action tv shows, movies and animation. After them:

Thor, Avengers, Daredevil, Elektra, Ghost Rider, Punisher, Submariner

They have had adaptations but most of the public would struggle to name or
recall details about them. After them:

Tigra, Iron Fist, Squirrel Girl, Hawkeye, Machine Man, everyone else, et al.

They exist in the comics but the vast public have never heard of them and
many comic book fans might struggle to name or recall details about them.

-- Ken from Chicago

[Bill Steele]

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by Bill Steele

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by T987654321
DC only has three big names
Superman - lots of films out, they need a new villan

Brainiac
Metallo
Myxlpltk

I keep saying this: Atom Man from the radio show. I suppose no one in
Hollywood is old enough to remember.

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by T987654321
Batman - doing big bucks
Wonder Woman - this I don't get, why has it been so hard to get what
would be a slam dunk hit out?

Totally agree.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/896ef286046b7184?hl=en

Post by T987654321
DC hasn't done much to promote thier second tier and the GL movie
didn't help.

And there may lie the anseer to the original question. Marvel doesn't
really have "tiers."

Spider-Man, Hulk, X-Men, Iron-Man, Captain America, Bucky, Fantastic Four
Those are fairly widely-known characters in the mainstream, due in part
Thor, Avengers, Daredevil, Elektra, Ghost Rider, Punisher, Submariner
They have had adaptations but most of the public would struggle to name
Tigra, Iron Fist, Squirrel Girl, Hawkeye, Machine Man, everyone else, et al.
They exist in the comics but the vast public have never heard of them
and many comic book fans might struggle to name or recall details about
them.
-- Ken from Chicago

True, every system has coirporals and privates.

What I probably should have said is that with the possible exception of
Spidey, none the Marvel characters were mainstream until they made their
first movies, while Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman have always been
cultural icons.

"Tiers" probably isn't the words to use there, although it applies
within the comic-book culture.

[Duggy]

Post by Bill Steele
True, every system has coirporals and privates.
What I probably should have said is that with the possible exception of
Spidey, none the Marvel characters were mainstream until they made their
first movies, while Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman have always been
cultural icons.

To be fair serials, movies and television have made and maintained
that.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

Post by Bill Steele

Post by Ken from Chicago

Post by T987654321
DC only has three big names
Superman - lots of films out, they need a new villan

Brainiac
Metallo
Myxlpltk

I keep saying this: Atom Man from the radio show. I suppose no one in
Hollywood is old enough to remember.

We said "no" to reusing Lex Luthor again.

Post by Bill Steele
And there may lie the anseer to the original question. Marvel doesn't
really have "tiers."

Really? Did all the Avengers from the upcoming film get their own
movie?

===
= DUG.
===

[William George Ferguson]

Post by T987654321
DC only has three big names
Superman - lots of films out, they need a new villan
Batman - doing big bucks
Wonder Woman - this I don't get, why has it been so hard to get what
would be a slam dunk hit out?
DC hasn't done much to promote thier second tier and the GL movie
didn't help.

There is this perception that the GL movie, and other superhero movies,
were failures at the box office. It is just that, a perception, not
reality.

I did this in the fall, but now that 2011 is all wrappted up, here's how
the 'superhero' movies did

Movie est.Bdgt US Foreign Worldwide
Thor 150m 181m 268m 449m
Captain America 140m 177m 192m 369m
X-Men: 1st Class 160m 146m 207m 353m
Green Lantern 200m 117m 103m 220m
The Green Hornet 120m 99m 129m 228m
Priest 60m 29m 49m 78m

Basically, if a movie took in twice as much as its estimated production
budget, it pretty much certainly made money (theatrical rental receipts,
that is, what the theatres pay the distributers to show the movie, are
about 54% of gross ticket sales). If it took in more than its estimated
budget, it probably ended up making money considering all revenue streams.
It's only likely to have lost money if its box office comes in
sginificantly below its estimated budget (Scott Pilgrim brought in 47m
worldiwide, and its budget was 60m). Even there, once all the ancillary
revenue streams are added it might stll have mmade money.

[Duggy]

Post by William George Ferguson
There is this perception that the GL movie, and other superhero movies,
were failures at the box office.  It is just that, a perception, not
reality.

Blockbusters are rated at a different level to normal films. A
blockbuster can make a small profit and still be a "failure"
financially.

Post by William George Ferguson
I did this in the fall, but now that 2011 is all wrappted up, here's how
the 'superhero' movies did
Movie            est.Bdgt    US      Foreign    Worldwide
Green Lantern      200m    117m        103m        220m

It made 10%... and that's Box Office as you detail.

If you're going to invest $200million you'll want it to do a lot
better than that.

However, that tells us that a second tier DC film can probably make
$200mil so if you can make a, say, Flash, film for $100mil you'll do
better.

Post by William George Ferguson
Basically, if a movie took in twice as much as its estimated production
budget, it pretty much certainly made money

GL didn't.

===
= DUG.
===

[William George Ferguson]

Post by Duggy

Post by William George Ferguson
There is this perception that the GL movie, and other superhero movies,
were failures at the box office.  It is just that, a perception, not
reality.

Blockbusters are rated at a different level to normal films. A
blockbuster can make a small profit and still be a "failure"
financially.

Post by William George Ferguson
I did this in the fall, but now that 2011 is all wrappted up, here's how
the 'superhero' movies did
Movie            est.Bdgt    US      Foreign    Worldwide
Green Lantern      200m    117m        103m        220m

It made 10%... and that's Box Office as you detail.
If you're going to invest $200million you'll want it to do a lot
better than that.

You would. The jury is out on whether Warners is happy or unhappy with the
take.

Post by Duggy
However, that tells us that a second tier DC film can probably make
$200mil so if you can make a, say, Flash, film for $100mil you'll do
better.

Post by William George Ferguson
Basically, if a movie took in twice as much as its estimated production
budget, it pretty much certainly made money

GL didn't.

And my next sentence was "If it took in more than its estimated
budget, it probably ended up making money considering all revenue streams."

GL did take in more than its estimated budget, and probably ended up making
money. (not on paper, of course)

One key thing to keep in mind about estimated budgets, specifically
estimated budgets over $100m, they are almost always inflated. This is one
of the key areas Hollywood Accounting uses to ensure that films do not show
a net profit, as long as the studio is better off with it not showing a net
profit (pretty much 'forever').For how the studios work (barely) within the
law to do this inflation, read the Buchwald transcripts, or read the Peter
Jackson filing on LOtR.

As to whether GL's performance was or wasn't satisfactory, the vote that
counts is Warner's. If there isn't a sequel, the vote isn't neccesarily
unsatisfactory, because there are so many factors, not all of them
economic, that go into a film being greenlighted, but 'unsatisfactory'
would surely be on the table. The only certainty is that a sequel is very
strong circumstantial evidence that Warner's was happy with the numbers.

As of today, Warner's has taken the various steps on the way to a sequel.
Since commentators have stated that GL1 was an economic failure, and since
commentators will never admit they are wrong, they will find other reasons
(including 'incompetence') rather than the simple one that their perception
of GL's performance and Warner's perception aren't the same, and Warner,
being the entity that is spending, and collecting, bucks, gives more weight
to their own.

[Duggy]

Post by William George Ferguson
And my next sentence was "If it took in more than its estimated
budget, it probably ended up making money considering all revenue streams."
GL did take in more than its estimated budget, and probably ended up making
money.  (not on paper, of course)

Well, Hollywood accounting - nothing makes money.

Theatrical and DVD, maybe a booster to the Emerald Knights video
sale. Was there a upswing in the GL comic sales?

Post by William George Ferguson
One key thing to keep in mind about estimated budgets, specifically
estimated budgets over $100m, they are almost always inflated.  This is one
of the key areas Hollywood Accounting uses to ensure that films do not show
a net profit, as long as the studio is better off with it not showing a net
profit (pretty much 'forever').For how the studios work (barely) within the
law to do this inflation, read the Buchwald transcripts, or read the Peter
Jackson filing on LOtR.

Or stuff said by JMS. Or the reason the Forest Gump writer has
refused to let them make a sequel.

Post by William George Ferguson
As to whether GL's performance was or wasn't satisfactory, the vote that
counts is Warner's.  If there isn't a sequel, the vote isn't neccesarily
unsatisfactory, because there are so many factors, not all of them
economic, that go into a film being greenlighted, but 'unsatisfactory'
would surely be on the table.  The only certainty is that a sequel is very
strong circumstantial evidence that Warner's was happy with the numbers.

Or happy with the income and the estimate drop in it. They used to
estimate that a sequel would have a box office 70% of what the
original pulled in. Obviously there are exceptions. However, a
sequel just means that they think that they can make money with a
budget under that number.

Post by William George Ferguson
As of today, Warner's has taken the various steps on the way to a sequel.
Since commentators have stated that GL1 was an economic failure, and since
commentators will never admit they are wrong, they will find other reasons
(including 'incompetence') rather than the simple one that their perception
of GL's performance and Warner's perception aren't the same, and Warner,
being the entity that is spending, and collecting, bucks, gives more weight
to their own.

There are always plans for a sequel at this stage.

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace sequel:
http://www.supermansupersite.com/supermanv.html

Superman Returns sequel:
http://au.movies.ign.com/articles/690/690806p1.html

Batman & Robin sequel:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117435255

It keeps the contracts warm and shooting schedules open. And the
result will be based not on whether they think that Green Lantern made
money or enough money but whether they think Green Lantern 2 can make
enough money.

In all of the above cases audience backlash was more important than
pure numbers.

===
= DUG.
===

[Marcovaldo]

Post by William George Ferguson
As of today, Warner's has taken the various steps on the way to a sequel.
Since commentators have stated that GL1 was an economic failure, and since
commentators will never admit they are wrong, they will find other reasons
(including 'incompetence') rather than the simple one that their perception
of GL's performance and Warner's perception aren't the same, and Warner,
being the entity that is spending, and collecting, bucks, gives more weight
to their own.

If I were betting money, I'd put better odds on a do-over, analogous
to Marvel's Hulk do-over, vs. a sequel.

[Bill Steele]

Post by Marcovaldo

Post by William George Ferguson
As of today, Warner's has taken the various steps on the way to a sequel.
Since commentators have stated that GL1 was an economic failure, and since
commentators will never admit they are wrong, they will find other reasons
(including 'incompetence') rather than the simple one that their perception
of GL's performance and Warner's perception aren't the same, and Warner,
being the entity that is spending, and collecting, bucks, gives more weight
to their own.

If I were betting money, I'd put better odds on a do-over, analogous
to Marvel's Hulk do-over, vs. a sequel.

A Guy Gardner version?

[Duggy]

Post by Marcovaldo

Post by William George Ferguson
As of today, Warner's has taken the various steps on the way to a seque
Since commentators have stated that GL1 was an economic failure, and since
commentators will never admit they are wrong, they will find other reasons
(including 'incompetence') rather than the simple one that their perception
of GL's performance and Warner's perception aren't the same, and Warner,
being the entity that is spending, and collecting, bucks, gives more weight
to their own.

If I were betting money, I'd put better odds on a do-over, analogous
to Marvel's Hulk do-over, vs. a sequel.

Both Punisher & Hulk had ambiguous reboots... sequelly enough that
many don't realize it wasn't.

Meanwhile, Fantastic Four got a sequel and Daredevil a spin off.

I think better than a sequel do another second tier film (say, The
Flash) see if you can get some good JLA vibes going.

Then again, a sequel does not need the rest of the corps and the ring
FX have been developed so it should be a lot cheaper.

===
= DUG.
===

[Will Dockery]

http://realwrestlecrap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=...
I hope I am not the only one who has noticed that DC has seriously
fallen short of Marvel in the movie department.

<snip for brevity>

Strange how things change... the first two Superman films set a
standard that really hasn't been matched as far as a comic book making
a truly great film.

Brando, Hackman... legendary icons.

Meet...

Reeve, Kidder... two instantl icons, now legends themselves.

It just doesn't get much better than those two movies, in *any* genre.

--
Shadowville All-Stars 2012:
http://www.reverbnation.com/willdockery