Well, they've announced a start date (September) for a Green Lantern movie (h/t reader Nate Winchester) but like all DC comics movies, I'll believe it when I see it.
Why am I so pessimistic?
Because the only viable comic book franchise they have is Christopher Nolan's Batman series, and with Nolan going on a bit of a Bat-hiatus, no one knows when the third movie will be coming out. (Don't mention the whiny emo-bitch Superman rehash)
I've written about this topic before, but I feel I had to reiterate some of my points, because it's cheap filler on a slow news day.
Warner Bros. is part of the Time-Warner media conglomopolis and so is DC Comics. Now you'd think it would be easy for Warner Bros. to exploit the comic book properties, but apparently that's not the case, at least for live action.
The chief explanation I can think of is some sort of managerial impotence. The evidence is that Time-Warner CEO, Jeff Bewkes, is keeping studio chiefs Barry Mayer and Allan Horn on the proverbial short leash, via short term contracts. The unwillingness to commit for any long term shows a real lack of confidence in how they are running the studio, and I, like a lot of people are thinking that it probably has something to do with their inability to get these movies made. Meanwhile Marvel, with no full time studio partner, is making movies, and money, hand over fist.
Which is funny, for the late 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s DC comics dominated movies, thanks to Superman and then Batman franchises, while Marvel had some limited success on TV with shows like The Incredible Hulk in the 1970s, couldn't translate it to big screen success. The first version of The Punisher was forgotten before the opening credits finished, Captain America went straight to VHS, and The Fantastic Four, in partnership with Roger Corman, never saw the inside of a theatre, or video discount bin.
This was the age of the Marvel Movie Curse. Which now seems to have been broken, and passed on to DC Comics.
If DC Comics and Warner Bros. Pictures were properly structured adapting their comic characters should be simple. Someone from DC, meets someone from Warners. They would then figure out what characters would translate best, which filmmakers and actors would handle those characters best. Then the filmmakers would look at the wealth of story material and villains to determine which would make a good movie. They'd shoot the movie, shill the movie, and watch the money roll in.
But it doesn't work that way.
And the reason is probably Time Warner's size. You see Warner Bros. is a massive company, it has a lot of highly paid executives, and those executives all feel the need to justify their existence and expense accounts.
So you get notes.
Lots of notes.
These notes have no real purpose, and most of the time the people giving them have no knowledge of the source material, or the subculture that surrounds it. So you get reports, like one a few years ago, of Green Lantern being developed as a comedy with Jack Black as Hal Jordan. Or someone saying that Superman should be a robot, like the Terminator, instead of an alien from Krypton, or a guy who invents a magic suit, or letting a director put nipples on the goddamn Bat-suit.
I can just picture what the development sessions are sounding like:
"Does Green Lantern really have to hit people with a lantern?"
"No, he doesn't hit people with lanterns, he uses a powerful ring made by aliens."
"Oh, so he's into bling. Does it have to be a ring? Can it be a gold chain?"
"We can cast 50 Cent!"
"I was just thinking that. We'll make him all hip-hop."
"Plus he needs a kid sidekick, see if Macaulay Culkin's available?"
"He's a little old isn't he?"
"We'll make him young digitally, he can use the work. Plus we need a dog."
"Yeah, like Beethoven."
"Saint Bernard's are out, I'm thinking that this is the year of the chihuaha."
"And by the way, I don't like the colour green, make his gold chain glow taupe."
Do you get my drift?
Now the animation division doesn't seem to have this problem. Bruce Timm is putting out animated movies starring the DC heroes on DVD, and they not only sell well, they appear to win over fans, and critics who are willing to give superhero animation a chance. Plus, they actually get completed.
Maybe they should put Timm in charge of the live-action movies?
Why am I so pessimistic?
Because the only viable comic book franchise they have is Christopher Nolan's Batman series, and with Nolan going on a bit of a Bat-hiatus, no one knows when the third movie will be coming out. (Don't mention the whiny emo-bitch Superman rehash)
I've written about this topic before, but I feel I had to reiterate some of my points, because it's cheap filler on a slow news day.
Warner Bros. is part of the Time-Warner media conglomopolis and so is DC Comics. Now you'd think it would be easy for Warner Bros. to exploit the comic book properties, but apparently that's not the case, at least for live action.
The chief explanation I can think of is some sort of managerial impotence. The evidence is that Time-Warner CEO, Jeff Bewkes, is keeping studio chiefs Barry Mayer and Allan Horn on the proverbial short leash, via short term contracts. The unwillingness to commit for any long term shows a real lack of confidence in how they are running the studio, and I, like a lot of people are thinking that it probably has something to do with their inability to get these movies made. Meanwhile Marvel, with no full time studio partner, is making movies, and money, hand over fist.
Which is funny, for the late 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s DC comics dominated movies, thanks to Superman and then Batman franchises, while Marvel had some limited success on TV with shows like The Incredible Hulk in the 1970s, couldn't translate it to big screen success. The first version of The Punisher was forgotten before the opening credits finished, Captain America went straight to VHS, and The Fantastic Four, in partnership with Roger Corman, never saw the inside of a theatre, or video discount bin.
This was the age of the Marvel Movie Curse. Which now seems to have been broken, and passed on to DC Comics.
If DC Comics and Warner Bros. Pictures were properly structured adapting their comic characters should be simple. Someone from DC, meets someone from Warners. They would then figure out what characters would translate best, which filmmakers and actors would handle those characters best. Then the filmmakers would look at the wealth of story material and villains to determine which would make a good movie. They'd shoot the movie, shill the movie, and watch the money roll in.
But it doesn't work that way.
And the reason is probably Time Warner's size. You see Warner Bros. is a massive company, it has a lot of highly paid executives, and those executives all feel the need to justify their existence and expense accounts.
So you get notes.
Lots of notes.
These notes have no real purpose, and most of the time the people giving them have no knowledge of the source material, or the subculture that surrounds it. So you get reports, like one a few years ago, of Green Lantern being developed as a comedy with Jack Black as Hal Jordan. Or someone saying that Superman should be a robot, like the Terminator, instead of an alien from Krypton, or a guy who invents a magic suit, or letting a director put nipples on the goddamn Bat-suit.
I can just picture what the development sessions are sounding like:
"Does Green Lantern really have to hit people with a lantern?"
"No, he doesn't hit people with lanterns, he uses a powerful ring made by aliens."
"Oh, so he's into bling. Does it have to be a ring? Can it be a gold chain?"
"We can cast 50 Cent!"
"I was just thinking that. We'll make him all hip-hop."
"Plus he needs a kid sidekick, see if Macaulay Culkin's available?"
"He's a little old isn't he?"
"We'll make him young digitally, he can use the work. Plus we need a dog."
"Yeah, like Beethoven."
"Saint Bernard's are out, I'm thinking that this is the year of the chihuaha."
"And by the way, I don't like the colour green, make his gold chain glow taupe."
Do you get my drift?
Now the animation division doesn't seem to have this problem. Bruce Timm is putting out animated movies starring the DC heroes on DVD, and they not only sell well, they appear to win over fans, and critics who are willing to give superhero animation a chance. Plus, they actually get completed.
Maybe they should put Timm in charge of the live-action movies?
We should make a bet D. If the GL movie gets made, you buy me a ticket to it. If not... I guess I'll buy you a ticket to a marvel movie. (Nick Fury should be out by then right?)
ReplyDelete"Does Green Lantern really have to hit people with a lantern?"
"No, he doesn't hit people with lanterns, he uses a powerful ring made by aliens."
"Oh, so he's into bling. Does it have to be a ring? Can it be a gold chain?"
"We can cast 50 Cent!"
"I was just thinking that. We'll make him all hip-hop."
"Plus he needs a kid sidekick, see if Macaulay Culkin's available?"
"He's a little old isn't he?"
"We'll make him young digitally, he can use the work. Plus we need a dog."
"Yeah, like Beethoven."
"Saint Bernard's are out, I'm thinking that this is the year of the chihuaha."
"And by the way, I don't like the colour green, make his gold chain glow taupe."
It's sad because it's probably true.
What's even sadder is right now Green Lantern is one of DC's hottest properties. (while DC's been canceling some of the excess bat books, there's been rumors that they have the numbers to run two or three more GL books) Not to mention that there's so much GL lore out there it has nearly limitless franchise potential. The story's about a whole CORP of these guys after all (7200 currently i believe). Just imagine the toys and spin offs you could mine from that.
And the scariest thought? I do think there's a GL with the ring hanging around its neck (Mogo? Debatable) and I know that in some media there is an actual dog GL.
Let THAT thought keep you awake at night.
Now the animation division doesn't seem to have this problem. Bruce Timm is putting out animated movies starring the DC heroes on DVD, and they not only sell well, they appear to win over fans, and critics who are willing to give superhero animation a chance. Plus, they actually get completed.
Maybe they should put Timm in charge of the live-action movies?
I wonder how much of this is due to Timm creating the most awesome of animated shows in the 90s - Batman (as well as 2 movies, which were the best Batman movies until Nolan). Do you think he's just gained enough clout to get this stuff made, or from all his work he's created a smooth animation assembly line machine.
I bet there's some fascinating going ons behind the scenes there.
I won't take any bets, which is why I stay out of hedge funds. ;)
ReplyDeleteAnd I think Timm's clout comes from the fact that most studio executives view TV/direct to video animation as a career graveyard so they try to avoid interference, and the fact that he does run a pretty smooth machine doesn't give them cause for any interference.