DC/WB Films/Worlds (No Spoilers)

[Pinsir]

Justice League Dark has her as the lead and it’s great. League of One is also a popular rec for a JL story starring Diana.

I read the first arc for JLD and I didn't really care for it, though I do understand it improved. You probably could have Wonder Woman written well as a team leader among a collection of 'lesser' characters, but it just never seems to happen with characters like Superman or Batman.

I also really don't like League of One, half the book is just her brutalizing her friends (with bat-wank of course) and the other is her trying to kill a monster. The book very much plays up the 'Wonder Woman is a warrior' trope, I mean, she fights a dragon. Might as well describe call it Wonder Woman: Skyrim.

[Jim Kelly]

I just can't imagine WB using "Justice League Dark" for the name of a movie. It would just not work to bring people into the theatre. I could see them doing some kind of Justice League based on Giffen and DeMatteis, with Zachary Levi as the Big Red Cheese and bringing in Blue Beetle, Booster Gold, Fire, Ice and Guy Gardner--but even there, I'm not sure they would use the "Justice League International" name.

[jetengine]

Its fairly simple imo.

The "Love and friendship" Wonder Woman is difficult to write for long periods in a superhero comic that also requires status quo and needs skilled writers to not come across as hokey.

Wheras "Warrior" Diana is alot easier as a generic fantasy combat character to write about.

[byrd156]

Its fairly simple imo.

The "Love and friendship" Wonder Woman is difficult to write for long periods in a superhero comic that also requires status quo and needs skilled writers to not come across as hokey.

Wheras "Warrior" Diana is alot easier as a generic fantasy combat character to write about.

How is one more difficult than the other? You can take whatever generic warrior story you want and easily shift/mold it into a more typical Wonder Woman story. What's wrong with "hokey"?

Also we should only do things that are easy? Writers need to push themselves otherwise you risk stagnation, boring storytelling or straight up lazy work.

"We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too." - JFK

The reason I bring this quote is to emphasize the need to push ourselves. Accepting less than or good enough shouldn't be the norm when it comes to anything done by pros of any industry. Whether it comes from food, sports, technological advances, basic entertainment, art, etc. There has to be a reason why those who are considered to be a part of an industry and put out work to be consumed by someone shouldn't be easily replicated or done by someone else.

[Baggie_Saiyan]

And Carol “5 relaunches in 4 years” Danvers is somehow an amazing character now? Her comics are awful and her sales are extremely low yet she made a billion. Freaking AQUAMAN made a billion. This idea that Superman somehow can’t is idiotic, Snyder’s movies sucked so the box office reflected that. I mean BvS couldn’t even make a billion when it had the Trinity on screen together for the first time tells me that the problem was Zack Snyder not the characters.

If someone makes a Superman movie that gets 90+ on RT and it still underperforms then I’ll accept that Supes is a relic and no one cares about him anymore. But let’s not pretend the DCEU Superman has been this huge critical success yet “somehow” hasn’t made any money. It’s been a complete catastrophe with Snyder botching every single character except Zod.

Why bring up Carol? That has nothing to do with what I said. Money doesn't reflect the quality of a movie, Shazam proves that he is basically not that different to Superman to anyone that doesn't read comics and his film had a high RT score yet he slogged to under 400m. You need to get that mentality out of your head that good movie RT score = good gross.

There is a reason why WB constantly want to re-invent the wheel with him. Yes he may shift merch but that doesn't necessarily mean people will be willing to watch a 2hr+ movie of him, just like with Spiderman.

I stand by what I say, I will be very surprised if a Superman movie ever hits 1bn.

Hell even if comic book sales when was the last time he constantly hit 100k? Tom King's Batman was woeful and was doing well for a long ass time so don't give me that mismanagened comic book excuse.

Superman just ain't big anymore.

[WillieMorgan]

Why bring up Carol? That has nothing to do with what I said. Money doesn't reflect the quality of a movie, Shazam proves that he is basically not that different to Superman to anyone that doesn't read comics and his film had a high RT score yet he slogged to under 400m. You need to get that mentality out of your head that good movie RT score = good gross.

There is a reason why WB constantly want to re-invent the wheel with him. Yes he may shift merch but that doesn't necessarily mean people will be willing to watch a 2hr+ movie of him, just like with Spiderman.

I stand by what I say, I will be very surprised if a Superman movie ever hits 1bn.

Hell even if comic book sales when was the last time he constantly hit 100k? Tom King's Batman was woeful and was doing well for a long ass time so don't give me that mismanagened comic book excuse.

Superman just ain't big anymore.

I don't think bringing up Captain Marvel was unfair. The point was that if movies starring the likes of her, or Aquaman for that matter, can break the billion dollar mark then there's nothing to stop a property like Superman also doing so. Of course, it would have to be a good film. I think that giving people a bit of a break from the character might help him in the long run too. We've had plenty of Superman films down the years, maybe enough for the general audience to get a bit burnt on the character and gravitate towards something new. New from their perspective I mean.

Shazam isn't a fair comparison. It was a cheaper film, centred around a much lesser known property, that was always gonna get buried the second that Endgame was released. That's not even hindsight talking. It was always gonna happen that. Had Shazam been a more expensive production then I doubt WB would have released it when they did. This was a movie that was never gonna do gangbusters box-office wise.

You may be right. Maybe we'll never get that billion dollar Superman film. It that the be-all and end-all nowadays? Do we now live in a world where a movie is instantly labelled a flop for not reaching that milestone?

[Agent Z]

I don't think bringing up Captain Marvel was unfair. The point was that if movies starring the likes of her, or Aquaman for that matter, can break the billion dollar mark then there's nothing to stop a property like Superman also doing so. Of course, it would have to be a good film. I think that giving people a bit of a break from the character might help him in the long run too. We've had plenty of Superman films down the years, maybe enough for the general audience to get a bit burnt on the character and gravitate towards something new. New from their perspective I mean.

Shazam isn't a fair comparison. It was a cheaper film, centred around a much lesser known property, that was always gonna get buried the second that Endgame was released. That's not even hindsight talking. It was always gonna happen that. Had Shazam been a more expensive production then I doubt WB would have released it when they did. This was a movie that was never gonna do gangbusters box-office wise.

You may be right. Maybe we'll never get that billion dollar Superman film. It that the be-all and end-all nowadays? [B]Do we now live in a world where a movie is instantly labelled a flop for not reaching that milestone[B]?

Regrettably yes. In the eyes of too many, you're a failure if you don't pull in Avengers money.

[WillieMorgan]

Regrettably yes. In the eyes of too many, you're a failure if you don't pull in Avengers money.

That says more about those type of people than anything else. It's labelling a lot of very successful films as flops (Thor: Ragnarok, both Guardians, Wonder Woman). It's a skewed perspective that's pushing a false narrative.

We've currently had no billion dollar Spider-Man movie either, through that statement might be rendered false in the near future. No X-Men films got anywhere near a billion, yet Fox carried on making them.

[SiegePerilous02]

Why bring up Carol? That has nothing to do with what I said. Money doesn't reflect the quality of a movie, Shazam proves that he is basically not that different to Superman to anyone that doesn't read comics and his film had a high RT score yet he slogged to under 400m. You need to get that mentality out of your head that good movie RT score = good gross.

There is a reason why WB constantly want to re-invent the wheel with him. Yes he may shift merch but that doesn't necessarily mean people will be willing to watch a 2hr+ movie of him, just like with Spiderman.

I stand by what I say, I will be very surprised if a Superman movie ever hits 1bn.

Hell even if comic book sales when was the last time he constantly hit 100k? Tom King's Batman was woeful and was doing well for a long ass time so don't give me that mismanagened comic book excuse.

Superman just ain't big anymore.

And they are REALLY bad at it. It says more about them than the character. They reinvent him in ways that arguably are not necessary or do boring rehashes of the old movies. They've never even been responsible for a Superman hit: they distributed the first two films, but didn't have a hand in their production. WB's inability to do right by the character does not mean another studio wouldn't be able to do it. Hell, Disney probably could.

With Wonder Woman and Captain America being hits with the general audience and not changed from who they are too much (if at all), there is no excuse for WB's ineptitude. And Superman can still sustain two solo ongoing titles, which is still more than most characters can say these days.

[Vordan]

Edit: You know what forget it. I stand by what I said. We’ll see what happens.

[Vordan]

I read the first arc for JLD and I didn't really care for it, though I do understand it improved. You probably could have Wonder Woman written well as a team leader among a collection of 'lesser' characters, but it just never seems to happen with characters like Superman or Batman.

I also really don't like League of One, half the book is just her brutalizing her friends (with bat-wank of course) and the other is her trying to kill a monster. The book very much plays up the 'Wonder Woman is a warrior' trope, I mean, she fights a dragon. Might as well describe call it Wonder Woman: Skyrim.

Supes usually heads up the LoSH and Batman heads up the Outsiders. Those two teams are definitely “lesser” in terms of brand awareness, so I don’t agree that Bats and Supes aren’t used with lesser known characters. Sorry if JL Dark isn’t your thing but it’s been the best WW ongoing imo since the Rucka Rebirth run.

[Jokerz79]

Captain Marvel and Aquaman don't have definitive versions to most people they're like many Marvel and even DC characters where people will roll with whatever interpretation you give as along as it is a good film.

Superman is my favorite DC character I'd love for him to have a great billion dollar movie but sadly he's been interpreted until about 2011 with New 52, Man of Steel, and Injustice for years in comics, films, TV, animation, books, and radio as the big boy scout fighting for truth, justice, and the American way. Even Batman due to changing tone in the comics over the decades, West's Show, Burton's Films, Schumacher Films, Nolan Films has a lot of various interpretation but Supes it was usually one.

So the double edge sword to making a Superman movie is you don't only have to make a good movie you have to make a good movie with the interpretation of Superman many people will accept because messing up Superman is like messing up a slice of Americana.

[Flash Gordon]

Captain Marvel and Aquaman don't have definitive versions to most people they're like many Marvel and even DC characters where people will roll with whatever interpretation you give as along as it is a good film.

Superman is my favorite DC character I'd love for him to have a great billion dollar movie but sadly he's been interpreted until about 2011 with New 52, Man of Steel, and Injustice for years in comics, films, TV, animation, books, and radio as the big boy scout fighting for truth, justice, and the American way. Even Batman due to changing tone in the comics over the decades, West's Show, Burton's Films, Schumacher Films, Nolan Films has a lot of various interpretation but Supes it was usually one.

So the double edge sword to making a Superman movie is you don't only have to make a good movie you have to make a good movie with the interpretation of Superman many people will accept because messing up Superman is like messing up a slice of Americana.

Yet, AQUAMAN was extremely faithful to the comics and made a billion. It felt like a natural fit for the Johns/Parker/Abnett runs. Hell, even Topo (or at least an ancestor of Topo) made it into the flick.

Superman can be done.

[Holt]

I'd say expecting Avengers-level money, or at least a billion, was totally warranted for BVS. That should've been a huge event. The fact that it had a massive opening weekend like that shows there was hype for it. What happened was that immediately afterwards, it had sharp drops at the box office due to the negative word of mouth.

BVS ranked in the top 10 opening weekends of all time, yet curiously, it's the only film in that top 10 that failed to gross a billion. The other 9 all did at least that. Even Furious 7, which had a lower opening weekend than BVS, ultimately did way better over time and grossed over a billion. The initial interest was there; the film just couldn't follow through with that momentum.

[Jim Kelly]

Even with the negative word of mouth, I'd expect BVS to have done better, just because it has these big name heroes. Batman alone should have been enough of a draw.

I never watched the trailers for the movie, because I didn't want to be spoiled--I went on opening day with no expectations and was rather happy with the movie. But looking at the trailers now, I can see why maybe they didn't pull in audiences. There's a lot of talking, there's not many great action scenes, Superman is portrayed as a villain, Batman doesn't come off much better and the trailers don't tell a clear story that would make people want to watch.

If you look at the foreign market numbers it didn't do as well as the movies that have broken the billion dollar mark. I don't know what the trailers were like for those foreign markets, but if they were like the domestic trailers--heavy with dialogue and no visuals to get people excited for the action--then I can see why foreign audiences stayed away. They want movies with stunning action set pieces, not lots of dialogue (which they might have to read in subtitles if it's not dubbed).