Would you be okay with smaller budgeted Batfamily movies?

[Masterff]

Sorry, but there is no way Cassandra Cain works better than Batwoman as an outside property. Nobody outside of the DC Comics fanbase know who this character is, heck, I doubt too many outside the Batman fanbase know her.

She has no real hook and there are better characters who tick every box she does, with much simpler stories and a higher profile (both in comics and outside media, such as cartoons and live action TV shows). By your own point, she was Batgirl/Black Bat/Orphan, sometimes she can talk, sometimes she can't, this isn't an easy sell for a character a mainstream audience has never heard of.

Batwoman is a simple brand - female Batman. She has the additional hook of being a LGBTQ character.

Batgirl is going to be Barbara Gordon - Young, female Batman. Has the additional hook of being Commissioner Gordon's daughter.

These are simple concepts to sell.

I will add that Cassandra Cain is a main character in Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn), so she will be appearing in the wider universe.

Difficult, I would say that Cassandra Cain would better work than Batwoman, because I also doubt that much people knew Batwoman before...

It depends HOW do you introduce Cassandra...
I would introduce her together with Bruce Wayne,Tim Drake,Stephanie and especially Barbara (as Oracle)...

If you let Bruce,Barbara,Tim,Stephanie act like as her "Managers" who take the talk role and show the vigilante Batgirl side of her it would work...

I have more problems with Batwoman, BECAUSE if you should make a Series, you should make a BatMAN Series, its strange and annoying to make the BatWOMAN Series, if you could also take the big star who isnt (from producer VIEW) so different from BatMAN...

To make a BatWOMAN Series feels like FORCED for me, because she is more or less (said in extreme terms) only a red-haired,lesbian,female Version of Batman who is also ready to kill...

Batgirl instead would feel different...

AND!!! being Gordons Daughter isnt a hook, you could also say that Cassandra is Shivas Daughter, who trained Batman...AND her childhood,teenager years etc. make Cassandra also more interesting..


So using Cassandra as Batgirl, let Tim,Bruce,Stephanie,Harper,Barbara do the talking and let Batgirl just learn to speak and having Nightmares,Flashbacks when she sleeps and let her do the ACTION parts would work...


Otherwise I am more in favor of a Nightwing Series...

[Vakanai]

Okay, lets say the budget is something closer to the $25-35 million range, could they still make some good Batfam movies you might be interested to see? What about direct to videos? How much do those typically cost (talking live action)?

[kjn]

In a way, the Batgirl discussion shows a bit how DC (and possibly) WB has their brands backwards. Batman, Batgirl, Flash, Green Lantern, and so on are the brands. They're not Bruce Wayne, Barbara Gordon, Barry Allen, or Hal Jordan. Fans might prefer one iteration of these characters over another, but it shouldn't matter if it's Babs or Cass or Steph in the Batgirl suit when marketing the movie (or other stuff).

Bruce Wayne as Batman (and Clark Kent as Superman) is a bit different, because the association has been so long and strong there, but they're examples of exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.

[Vakanai]

In a way, the Batgirl discussion shows a bit how DC (and possibly) WB has their brands backwards. Batman, Batgirl, Flash, Green Lantern, and so on are the brands. They're not Bruce Wayne, Barbara Gordon, Barry Allen, or Hal Jordan. Fans might prefer one iteration of these characters over another, but it shouldn't matter if it's Babs or Cass or Steph in the Batgirl suit when marketing the movie (or other stuff).

Bruce Wayne as Batman (and Clark Kent as Superman) is a bit different, because the association has been so long and strong there, but they're examples of exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.

I'm not quite sure what your point is exactly, or if it really ties into this thread at all, kinda went over my head, but dammit if now I don't want a low budget or DTV Batgirl origin trilogy with each movie being the origin of a different Batgirl (Babs/Cass/Steph).

[exile001]

I HATE the Orphan name. If she can't be Batgirl she should have remained as Black Bat, which at least still had Bat in the title and clued you in that she was part of the Batfamily. I don't understand why they made the name change.

I liked that name and costume, too.

[kjn]

I'm not quite sure what your point is exactly, or if it really ties into this thread at all, kinda went over my head, but dammit if now I don't want a low budget or DTV Batgirl origin trilogy with each movie being the origin of a different Batgirl (Babs/Cass/Steph).

It was a tangent on the viability of a Cassandra Cain movie versus as Batwoman movie, though it became a bit more general than that, moving outside the movies and commenting on DC's obsession on only certain characters being allowed to inhabit certain brands (Batgirl and Flash probably being the two most prominent).

[exile001]

I think the stigma is only on if the special effects look cheap, but I could be wrong. I know they tend not to become blockbusters, but they also didn't have as big a marketing push either. Some of my favorite films have had lower budgets, like one of my favorites this decade was Mr. Holmes with Ian McKellan as Sherlock.

Any evidence to suggest there's a stigma on such movies beyond cheesy effects? (Not debating, genuinely curious.)

Maybe stigma is the wrong word, but people will notice if effects or overall production values look weak in a trailer and avoid a movie accordingly (provided its an effects based movie, which people expect these to be). I see it every week. There is definitely the issue of advertising budget which, sad as it is, really helps get bums in seats. It's all a strange form of scaling, a movie on budget X will rarely exceed $X, a movie on budget Y will be considered a failure if it doesn't exceed $Y. Those things combined are almost a chicken or egg scenario.

[sunofdarkchild]

Yeah, but there's already a ton of DC tv shows thanks to the CW and now the streaming service, so it'd feel like another show would just be crowded out. Plus I feel even the smaller movies get a larger audience than any Robin tv show ever could. So for getting more attention both by standing above a crowd of so-so shows and getting more eyeballs on it, you really can't beat a film. Plus I feel like that's a whole other discussion. Sometimes you just want to talk about opinions on what you'd like to see on film, not the debate over whether TV is better than Film today (hope that's not condescending, just tired of always reading a post about how a TV/HBO/Netflix series would be better in every movie thread ever these days).

A lot of it depends of the property. I feel that Robin as a teen drama dealing with school and such would work better as a long-form television show than a single feature-length film. A tv show can use characters like Spoiler and Sheriff 'shotgun' Smith, whereas a movie would be more likely to stick with the more regular bat-cast of Gordon and Alfred end end up being more like 'Batman-lite.' With Batwoman on the other hand I don't think the cast would really be affected by making it a movie instead of a TV show. Her father would be there no matter what. The main difference is that a movie would be faster paced and have less of a need to say that Batman just left Gotham for good. It's not that TV is better than movies or vice versa, but that I think the specific concept would work better as a tv show.

One issue with many of these characters is how a movie with them can have them and not have Batman show up. Batwoman and Batgirl I think can do it. Robin, Azrael, Spoiler, and most other vigilantes I think need to be introduced in a regular Batman movie before they can get their own movies.

[Godlike13]

I’d eat up a John Wick style Nightwing film that relies on good stunt work over cgi and big special effects.

[Agent Z]

Sorry, but there is no way Cassandra Cain works better than Batwoman as an outside property. Nobody outside of the DC Comics fanbase know who this character is, heck, I doubt too many outside the Batman fanbase know her.

Until, she got her own t.v. show, no one knew who Batwoman was. Not this interation any way.

She has no real hook

A master martial artist who is the daughter of two assassins trying to atone for her crime of killing someone. This differentiates her from most members of the Batfamily who were victims of crimes rather than the perpetrators.
She’s also the first non-white member of the Batfamily.

and there are better characters who tick every box she does,

Like who?

with much simpler stories and a higher profile (both in comics and outside media, such as cartoons and live action TV shows).

Every long running character’s backstory ends up looking confusing the longer they are around. Good adaptations take the good parts and streamline them.

By your own point, she was Batgirl/Black Bat/Orphan, sometimes she can talk, sometimes she can't, this isn't an easy sell for a character a mainstream audience has never heard of.

Batwoman started out as a love interest for Batman. Then she was a lesbian. Then she was his cousin.

Batgirl is going to be Barbara Gordon - Young, female Batman. Has the additional hook of being Commissioner Gordon's daughter.

By your logic, we don’t need Barbara Gordon because we already have a female Batman in the form of Batwoman.

I will add that Cassandra Cain is a main character in Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn), so she will be appearing in the wider universe.

So she’s good enough to be in Birds of Prey but not enough to have her own show despite being the first Batgirl to have her own solo comic series?

[Vakanai]

Maybe stigma is the wrong word, but people will notice if effects or overall production values look weak in a trailer and avoid a movie accordingly (provided its an effects based movie, which people expect these to be). I see it every week. There is definitely the issue of advertising budget which, sad as it is, really helps get bums in seats. It's all a strange form of scaling, a movie on budget X will rarely exceed $X, a movie on budget Y will be considered a failure if it doesn't exceed $Y. Those things combined are almost a chicken or egg scenario.

But just because people now expect these movies to be huge special effects extravaganzas doesn't mean there isn't an audience for smaller superhero films. Actually, because these kinds of films largely don't exist, we can't say if there wouldn't be an audience for them, or if the expectations would doom it. Certainly superhero movies with relatively speaking smaller budgets have works, such as Kick-Ass and the first Deadpool. Despite not setting the world on fire I've heard that Brightburn seems to be profitable~ish. Again, what the huge, mass of GA expects might not matter because such films wouldn't need to make a billion dollars to be successful. Depending on the price, it could be successful at a tenth that, 100 million or even 75 million. Again, maybe less depending on the cost. Small theatricals can slip in, make profit, and slip out with a lot of people forgetting that was a thing. But still, money is money. You just need to divorce the idea that every hero movie must be a big MCU styled spectacle, and compare it to other films in the low budget range.

I'm just saying we might be focusing too much on what audiences expect, and whether or not such films can find a small niche to be profitable in. Like a Medea movie (I didn't even notice Medea something Funeral was a movie in the theater until my grandma went to see it while I went to see something else).

A lot of it depends of the property. I feel that Robin as a teen drama dealing with school and such would work better as a long-form television show than a single feature-length film. A tv show can use characters like Spoiler and Sheriff 'shotgun' Smith, whereas a movie would be more likely to stick with the more regular bat-cast of Gordon and Alfred end end up being more like 'Batman-lite.' With Batwoman on the other hand I don't think the cast would really be affected by making it a movie instead of a TV show. Her father would be there no matter what. The main difference is that a movie would be faster paced and have less of a need to say that Batman just left Gotham for good. It's not that TV is better than movies or vice versa, but that I think the specific concept would work better as a tv show.

One issue with many of these characters is how a movie with them can have them and not have Batman show up. Batwoman and Batgirl I think can do it. Robin, Azrael, Spoiler, and most other vigilantes I think need to be introduced in a regular Batman movie before they can get their own movies.

Again, I'm arguing if a film with a lower budget would be something people would want to see, not necessarily what characters would work best in what medium or long-form television versus short-form films. I'm not saying or arguing against what you want, just saying that's not really the discussion I'm interested in having. I think a Robin tv show would be great. I think a low budget Robin movie would be great. I think a big budget blockbuster Robin film would be great. I think a Netflix or HBO Robin miniseries would be great. But I'm not interested in which would work better, just the feasibility or plausibility or success of just one of those approaches. I'm just curious if a low budget Batfamily film, whether Robin or Nightwing or Batgirl or whoever, would be cool or work, because unlike TV shows or big budget movies it's something we've never really seen. It's the unknown "would this work" factor that interests me most here, not discussing our dream projects if we were in charge of the film/tv side of batfamily.

Sorry if that was long winded, I just wanted to keep it on topic without (hopefully) sounding like a douche about it.

[Aahz]

A master martial artist who is the daughter of two assassins trying to atone for her crime of killing someone. This differentiates her from most members of the Batfamily who were victims of crimes rather than the perpetrators.

Cassandra has on her own with out the rest of the Batfamily kind of the same problem that the Punisher movies have.

In the comics her stick is unique, but when it comes to movies, there are are tons of martial art movies and probably the majority of them have Asian leads. in the movies she really needs imo a strong Batfrachise to be successfull.


Like I said i think it is similar with Punisher, if they made punisher movie and would really connected it to the MCU I think it could be a success. But without that connection all the Punisher movies we had sofar were just generic r-rated Action movies, and there are just way cooler and more stylish action movies out there than the Punisher movies.

I think Red Hood would have a similar Problem.

[exile001]

Glad you're cool to chat about this and didn't take it as me just dismissing Cass. I'm not her biggest fan, but am definitely not a "kill her and never mention her again" guy. Especially as I'm a big Tim fan, and we've had some real hard times over the last 10+ years.

In comics, where budget isn't such an issue, I think everyone's favourite character should get a chance to be highlighted. The Bat-books seem to really be trying to have a book for as many characters as possible to appear in. Thankfully, I now have Young Justice back.

I'm only speaking in mass-market terms and from my opinion, also only in terms of a Batwoman over Cass TV show. Heck, it's why i'll never get a Wally led Flash movie or show.

[Vakanai]

A lot of it depends of the property. I feel that Robin as a teen drama dealing with school and such would work better as a long-form television show than a single feature-length film. A tv show can use characters like Spoiler and Sheriff 'shotgun' Smith, whereas a movie would be more likely to stick with the more regular bat-cast of Gordon and Alfred end end up being more like 'Batman-lite.' With Batwoman on the other hand I don't think the cast would really be affected by making it a movie instead of a TV show. Her father would be there no matter what. The main difference is that a movie would be faster paced and have less of a need to say that Batman just left Gotham for good. It's not that TV is better than movies or vice versa, but that I think the specific concept would work better as a tv show.

One issue with many of these characters is how a movie with them can have them and not have Batman show up. Batwoman and Batgirl I think can do it. Robin, Azrael, Spoiler, and most other vigilantes I think need to be introduced in a regular Batman movie before they can get their own movies.

(Sorry for replying to you same posts twice, it's just I'm in a hurry to get something posted so I reply to one part, post, then come back to the other part.)
I do feel like you're right that Batwoman would work better as a film since there'd be no need to write Batman out of Gotham permanently like the TV show has/will. Same problem I have with Supergirl, where it feels like it's become the point of saying she's become the better hero than that loser Superman can ever be, who needs to go do other things besides heroic hero stuff. But that's a tangent, probably.

You could also do like Robin Year One, where you don't need to write Batman out, but make him more the supporting character. So a Robin movie could work without introducing him in a Batman movie first. Just show it from his point of view meeting Batman.

[KOSLOX]

I'd like to see Robert Eggers do an Arkham Asylum movie, perhaps one focused on Amadeus Arkham establishing the first Asylum.