Slashdot Mirror


Warner Brothers Announces 10 New DC Comics Movies

wired_parrot writes After being criticized for being slow to respond to Marvel's string of blockbuster superhero movies, Warner Brothers finally announced their plan for DC comic universe movie franchise. Yesterday at their annual shareholder meeting, WB announced 10 DC comics movies. The studio has unveiled an ambitious schedule that features two Justice League films, plus standalone titles for Wonder Woman, Flash, Shazam (Captain Marvel), Green Lantern, Cyborg and even Aquaman. Also announced were plans for 3 Lego movies and a three-part Harry Potter spinoff.

30 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. To quote TBBT by xystren · · Score: 4, Funny

    Aquaman sucks!

  2. Hollywood is mentally bankrupt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Everything these days is reboots, reboots of reboots, sequels, prequels, sequels to prequels, prequels to sequels, comic book adaptations, games adaptations, movies made from tv series, remakes, remakes of remakes, japanese remakes.

    Seems like they're not even trying anymore.

    1. Re:Hollywood is mentally bankrupt by Calydor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Where does Game of Thrones fit in that list? Or do adaptations of books also count?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    2. Re:Hollywood is mentally bankrupt by painandgreed · · Score: 2

      Everything these days is reboots, reboots of reboots, sequels, prequels, sequels to prequels, prequels to sequels, comic book adaptations, games adaptations, movies made from tv series, remakes, remakes of remakes, japanese remakes.

      Seems like they're not even trying anymore.

      That has always been the case. When I say The Wizard of Oz, the movie you are thinking of was the fifth one made, making it just a reboot. Do you know how many Tarzan, Jackie Chan, and other characters that had endless series of reboots, sequels, and prequels there were in the history of film? They're always trying and this is what you get. If you think you can do better, start writing screen plays or form a production company and make your millions.

    3. Re:Hollywood is mentally bankrupt by vux984 · · Score: 2

      Lets see the last several movies I went to:

      Lego movie -- creative and fun movie, based on lego, of course, but I didn't see that on your list of complaints.

      Guardians of the Galaxy -- comic book inspired (although I'd never read nor heard of it before)

      Edge of Tomorrow -- unless it was a Japanese remake this seemed pretty original. Sure it had elements of Groundhog day but to call it a reboot of groundhog day would be stretching it. ;)

      Wreck-It-Ralph -- original, featured 2ndary characters from a variety of existing games

      Hobbit II - based on the Hobbit and LotR appendixes + sequel

      Hunger Games 2 - book adaptation / sequel? (or just adaptation of book 2?)

      Looper - original work?

      Django - original?

      Star Trek Into Darkness - reboot/remake and sequel all in one

      Despicable Me 2 - original sequel

      Frozen - original (and ok, by now its probably clear I have kids)

      Hugo - original?

      Tinker Tailer Soldier Spy - apparently a book adaptation

      Seriously -- while I don't dispute that there are a lot of reboots and sequels and such out there, there's lots of good original work and/or novel adaptations that aren't sequels and reboots. Overall I'd say this has been a great decade...

    4. Re:Hollywood is mentally bankrupt by BringsApples · · Score: 2

      Seems like they're not even trying anymore.

      Oh, they're trying alright, but how many ideas for movies can there even be? By the time I was 6 (I'm from the 70's) I knew that eventually movies wouldn't be a thing as they once were. I figured that one day movies and games would merge. When I first saw that game "Dragon's Lair" I thought it'd begun. I was obviously wrong.

      It seems like people take movies less seriously than they used to, and there really aren't that many ideas for movies that'd be very interesting. The result is that movies are stuck either trying to please the older crowd with sequels/prequels (where's "E.T. 2"), or will end up being about something that takes so much consideration that the movie isn't fun to watch ("Primer" anyone?).

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    5. Re:Hollywood is mentally bankrupt by BringsApples · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or do adaptations of books also count?

      As long as no one fucks up another book-made-into-movie as they did with HHGTTG.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    6. Re:Hollywood is mentally bankrupt by geekoid · · Score: 2

      every thing suck!
      what about these great things?
      Those don't count.

      Grow up.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Hollywood is mentally bankrupt by geekoid · · Score: 4, Informative

      you are wrong. Movies have always been like this.
      I'm from the 60's.
      Lets list some great 70's culture, shall we?
      Six Million Dollar Man -from a book.
      Planet of the Apes - Book
      Soylent Green - Book.
      The Godfather - book
      Spaghetti westerns? Many of them are remakes.
      I could go on and on.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:Hollywood is mentally bankrupt by Scot+Seese · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No..

      Actually, patrons are mentally bankrupt. Hollywood puts original content in front of audiences every now and then, and it underwhelms at the box office.

      Brand familiarity and the powerful psychological pull it has on consumers are just as responsible for you wanting to see the next Star Trek movie as you are likely to keep buying the same laundry detergent.

      --
      THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
  3. I don't get it... by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I never read comics when I was a kid.(well, thats not true, I read Heavy Metal)
    I read sci-fi(Niven, Asimov, Bradbury, etc) and fantasy(Tolkien, Lovecraft, Howard, etc).
    I don't get this thing with comics. Most of the comic book based films are ok at best...
    Are they really going to make that many comic book based films?
    That is just sad.

    There are so many good sci-fi and fantasy books/stories out there.
    It would be nice if something not ending in "man" was made into a film.

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    1. Re:I don't get it... by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am no expert, but I believe it's because they are easy.

      They are easy to pitch. You just use the comic book to explain the concept.

      They are easy to script. Logic and reason fly out the window. You don't want mutants to be exterminated ? Declare war on the U.S. in their name.

      The action scenes and big explosions are built in. Just take it straight from the storyboard aka comic book.

      They have a built in market. Pre sold to the comic fans.

      The people that go to them don't expect much and hence are rarely disappointed

    2. Re:I don't get it... by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The people that go to them don't expect much and hence are rarely disappointed

      That about sums it up!

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    3. Re:I don't get it... by sexconker · · Score: 4, Funny

      The people that go to them don't expect much and hence are rarely disappointed

      I saw Spiderman 3, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, The Amazing Spiderman, Thor: The Dark World, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Man of Steel, The Dark Knight Rises, The Dark Knight, Batman Begins, Hulk, The Incredible Hulk, Fantastic 4, Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer, X-Men, X-Men 2, X-Men: The Last Stand, X-Men: Wolverine Origins, The Wolverine, X-Men: First Class, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Daredevil, The Green Lantern, Ghost Rider, Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, Superman Returns, The Punisher, and Ninja Turtles, you insensitive clod!

    4. Re:I don't get it... by painandgreed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am no expert, but I believe it's because they are easy.

      I would add that they are also able to mine decades of stories for the ones that have proven themselves over time and have a following. Comics as a business compared to the film industry is almost not worth mentioning, but for what it is worth, they can essentially run scripts (complete with storyboards) past the public monthly to see what resonates with them and which ones turn out to be good, and even have them pay for themselves. Most of the movies that have been made have been the classic story lines that were getting printed into graphic novels and have highly sought after issues by collectors for years. Marvel even has a large collection of test marketing with updating such stories to a modern setting and sensibilities with the Ultimate series. It's no surprise that the movies are a combination of the regular Marvel stories and the Ultimate stories as they've already seen what people like and don't like with updating such. Comics seem to be an excellent marketing test field for movies and I'm actually sort of surprised they didn't end up experimenting with it way before now (probably because comic code kept them from really being useful to the movie industry).

    5. Re:I don't get it... by painandgreed · · Score: 2

      Tolkien wasn't brought to the screen. Something was, and it was ok, but it wasn't Tolkien.

      I reread the books and honestly, it was better than Tolkien. Tolkien's stories show their age with their writing and lack of modern attitudes, no women, classist social structures sometimes bordering on racism. He was writing for his own personal experiment with the biases of his time and it shows.

    6. Re:I don't get it... by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Informative

      The people that go to them don't expect much and hence are rarely disappointed

      Actually, prior to X-Men, we were regularly disappointed. Because everyone who tried to make a comic-based movie did a terrible job prior to that. There's almost not a single comic-based movie before this which treated the material well and didn't devolve into some corny parody,

      Are they escapism and popcorn cinema? Absolutely they are.

      But, what you can't argue with is the bottom line -- they make money. Lots and lots of money. When X-Men came out on DVD, the sales of the DVD were higher than the highest grossing films in the box office. That was the first time sales of a DVD had done that, and suddenly people stood up and took notice.

      Disney bought Marvel for something like $4 billion dollars. I believe the Iron man films alone have brought in something like $4 billion dollars, and that's possibly before we hit the merchandising.

      So, you may not like them (and nobody says you have to), but there's really no denying that the Marvel properties which have been turned into film since X-Men have generated huge amounts of money, have been seen by tons of people, and have even more films (and money) in the pipeline.

      DC is hoping they can cash in on the action, but they may not have as many properties as people relate to, and if they don't have a "big vision" kind of deal where someone who knows the material keeps it such that the fans still watch it.

      If they carve it up, do a bunch of things which don't go according to canon, or generally do a half job and expect to just roll in the money, they could be seriously disappointed.

      Marvel has been smart, they know the rules and stories of their characters, and have entrusted it in the hands of people who actually know the material. Which means the people who want to see them don't find themselves halfway through a film going "no, that's not right".

      Contrast this with the Spider Man series, which is a Marvel property but has been in the hands of Sony. They're on their second reboot of the damned thing. We don't want yet another Peter Parker origin story because you don't want to pay the actor. If that's all you have, just stop.

      So, "pre sold to comic fans" isn't a gimme. If DC just acts all cynical and "give me the money", they might find they've made crappy films that nobody has any interest in seeing. Think Dare Devil and Electra.

      The proof is in the pudding, and in the revenues. Just jumping on the comic book movie isn't a guarantee of anything.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:I don't get it... by nine-times · · Score: 2

      I think your best point is "They have a built in market." It's true that, if you release a big-budget movie about a popular character, there are some people who will watch it pretty much no matter what. That's why so many new movies are some kind of adaptation or remake-- so that they can count on a pre-existing audience who will see it, even if it's bad, if only out of curiousity or loyalty to the original work.

      The rest of your points aren't quite fair, though. You could argue that the writing isn't amazing and that there's a lot of action, but the movie industry has been putting out dumb action movies for an awfully long time now, and it didn't start with comic-book movies. And really... the writing isn't necessarily bad.

      I don't think they're easy. You have a few decades of really bad comic-book movies to demonstrate how easy it is to make a bad one. And I don't think "people are rarely disappointed". There's a bit of a consensus that the third X-Men was bad, the first Wolverine movie was terrible, and the Fantastic Four movies were pretty awful. A lot of people weren't particularly happy with "Man of Steel", either. Go back to the Joel Schumacher Batman movies, and I don't think you could sum up people's feelings about them with a word better than "disappointed".

      I think the real explanation is that Sam Raimi showed everyone that you could make a good superhero movie that took the source material seriously, and then Christopher Nolan showed that you could make one that is also simply a good movie. Those were still one-offs and flukes, though, until Marvel showed that you could take a systematic approach toward leveraging these kinds of properties into a series of movies, and DC/Warner (as well as Fox) are looking to emulate that.

      And though they might not be to your taste, a lot of these things aren't bad movies. Especially not if you compare them to other summer blockbuster action movies.

    8. Re:I don't get it... by torqer · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Actually, prior to X-Men, we were regularly disappointed. Because everyone who tried to make a comic-based movie did a terrible job prior to that. There's almost not a single comic-based movie before this which treated the material well and didn't devolve into some corny parody,"

      Um, I can recall several excellent Superman and Batman movies that predate X-men. I'd put the first TMNT movie in that list as well. Some other fairly good, and successfu and somewhat accurate to the material, comic book movies before X-Men: Rocketeer, Robocop, and The Crow.

  4. Re:Ugh.. by kwiqsilver · · Score: 4, Funny

    Think of it like a piñata that drops millions of dollars every time you hit it.

    I wouldn't let go of the stick, until they yanked it from my hands.

  5. Not just Aquaman by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Frankly...beyond Superman and Batman, DC doesn't have much—at least that anyone has heard of and/or cares about. Wonder Woman, Flash, and Green Lantern do at least have some following, but they haven't aged well and I'm not sure they can translate to film nearly as well as, say, Iron Man.

    IMHO, they'd be better off finding some more offbeat superheroes from their back catalog (a la Guardians of the Galaxy) or biting the bullet and inventing some new ones.

    Still, Marvel has done an amazing job of refurbishing characters like Captain America and Thor, so maybe DC can do the same.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    1. Re:Not just Aquaman by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      They could just take all of their DC Animated Universe stories and convert them to live action. The writers for the DCAU seem to know how to grab a comic book audience. The DC live action movie writers don't want to make a fun comic book movie. They want to make a work of art based on a comic book series.

    2. Re:Not just Aquaman by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      That has been Marvel's secret since they first started. Marvel has always been about the human side of the masks.

  6. Last studio on the bandwagon... by LessThanObvious · · Score: 2

    Well, throw enough shit at the wall and something is bound to stick. If they need any more movie ideas here's a few.

    "Slightly better than average guy"
    "Stick figure man"
    "Powdered Toast Man"
    "Turd sandwich vs. Giant Douche"
    "Harry Potter and the Raiders of the Lost Ark"
    And "Didn't quite do it Justice League"

  7. Wizard of Oz reboot? by Ignatius · · Score: 2

    When you say "Wizard of Oz", the movie I'm thinking of is of course Zardoz with the most badass Sean Connery ever, sporting "a red nappy, knee-high leather boots, pony tail and Zapata moustache". The closing sequence with the allegretto from Beethoven's 8th still gives me shivers.
    ignatius

  8. TV vs Film by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    DC does a lot better with TV than film. Consider

    - Smallville was a huge success, very long run
    - Arrow has been renewed twice, has a good audience and is doing very well
    - The Flash looks like it has legs
    - Gotham is getting rave reviews and looks like it has legs as well

    Now let's look at their last couple of films:

    - Man of Steel - OK this wasn't that bad
    - Green Lantern - horrible
    - Watchmen - Good movie but flopped
    - Jonah Hex - Did anyone even know this movie came out?
    - Superman Returns - horrible

    The only saving grace has been the Nolan Batman films.

    1. Re:TV vs Film by EXTomar · · Score: 2

      "Man of Steel" represents how WB has been managing mismanaging their stuff for movies which makes me dread what they are going to do for this next one.

      The big issue with "Man of Steel" was that it was so joyless and unfun. Clark's dad is way more concerned about making Clark mopey and conflicted instead of recognizing how great it is to save lives. Throwing down downtown Metropolis without recognition about how destructive or dangerous that was. Then when he retreats he mopes about worried about how people will see him while the planet is effectively enslaved. At the end of the movie made me wish I was watching a movie about "Jor'el The Intergalactic Freedom Fighter" instead.

      Forget Marvel's stuff. I don't want to watch 10 movies with Batman brooding about Superman brooding about Wonder Woman brooding about what Lex Luthor is planning.

  9. I saw the Shazam movie already by Culture20 · · Score: 2

    Who knew Shaquille Oneal could act? The only thing I don't get was he also played Steel.

  10. Out of tone, mile of origin by cfalcon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One of the big problems DC comics has had since they no longer were, you know, about detectives, is that they generally tell the large stories like Marvel, but in a similar universe with fewer characters and often crazier origin stories and power sources.

    I would argue that this difference has been a key to their success, but also has hurt them badly. Superman's origin story- the lone orphan survivor of an amazing race- resonates pretty ludicrously well, but the frequently paired Amazonian warrior or Galactic Cop both presuppose the existence of an entire universe of other stuff. Suddenly you need to have Amazonians in the modern era, and suddenly you need a galactic everything in place, and etc.

    The Marvelverse, meanwhile, just takes random events and decides that they just happened to make a super hero now. Gamma radiation, radioactive spider bite, radiation in the upper atmosphere, random genetic powers- these are all "more realistic", but importantly, they don't drag a bunch of bullshit into the story from the sidelines. While Krypton conveniently self destructed, meaning that you can have as much or as little Krypton in your superman story as you need, most of the DC guys bring with them a whole wide world of junk you need to wade through and consider.

    Even the divine characters are much more tied to reality for Marvel, with the Norse Gods being a fine set of guys to throw on screen any old time. Meanwhile, the "new gods" of DC are alien, bizarre, and require much devotion to understand what the heck is going on.

    The Marvel universe has given us a ton of X-Men, Spiderman, the Hulk, Iron Man, Fantastic Four, Thor, Captain America, and they are all very well loved. Soon we'll see Dr. Strange as well. To explain these we have:
    "Some people are mutants", "Radiation can give you powers", "there's some magic", "super serum, one time only offer".

    Meanwhile, just to get us to Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, The Flash, Martian Manhunter, and Aquaman, a reasonable superfriends crew, you end up needing Themyscira, a modern Amazon place, a whole race of Amazons to go with it, Atlantis as a living and actual kingdom under the sea, a whole race of martian (or alternately, several of them left with a destroyed race and a host of badguys that killed them), a whole lot of crazy stuff in Gotham, a bunch of alien superpower guys doling out willpower rings, meaning, oh yea, a galaxy spanning set of everything imaginable.

    The other thing hurting them in a movie format is that they have a relatively light tone in many of the comics, and when they do not, they don't try to avoid whatever they are talking about. The race of goofy green aliens with the dumb rings are meaningful if they are being exterminated, and you feel bad for them, etc. Is a movie going to make you feel bad for these CGI freaks you learned about 15 minutes prior, in the space of two hours? Unlikely.

    Instead, they will often darken everything, and just leave out most of the lore, trying to make them more marvel-like. Wonder woman is going to look like she's dressed as a robot, superman couldn't even keep his actual outfit and had to straight up murder some dude, etc.

  11. Game of Thrones by OglinTatas · · Score: 2

    Plantagenet reboot