WB taps into ties at DC Comics

ruff-a-reek

Star
Registered
WB taps into ties at DC Comics
Co. has heroes like Wonder Woman, Flash
By MARC GRASER

When it comes to superhero properties, Warner Bros. couldn't be sitting on a more enviable source: DC Comics, home to Batman, Superman and other well-known caped crusaders.
But to make its heroes fly at the megaplex, the studio knows it needs to make the right movies. The financial payoff is too big to squander with a creative misfire like "Catwoman."

"They can really be an evergreen source of enjoyment and income," says studio topper Alan Horn, referring to the coin a hit pic can collect at the B.O. and from sources like TV, homevid, vidgames and merchandise. The studio earned $1 billion from DC fare alone in 2005, when "Batman Begins" was released. "If you do it wrong, you're dead, you're out of there."

Getting out there, however, has taken time.

Warners and DC (both Time Warner entities) have labored in vain over another Superman, and launches for Wonder Woman, The Flash, Green Arrow and Green Lantern. It's maddening for fans as rival Marvel Comics has successfully begun financing its own slate of pics, first with "Iron Man," then a reboot of "The Incredible Hulk" this summer.

That could soon change, as Warners is readying to revamp how DC's properties are developed -- changes that could be announced within the next month.

DC doesn't have a separate film division the way rival Marvel does, which is moving forward with an "Iron Man" sequel and adaptations of Thor, Captain America and the superhero team-up "The Avengers" for 2010 and 2011.

That means Warners doesn't have a sole cheerleader for its comicbook projects, or someone to work closely with filmmakers to develop them.

Until now, those duties have been shared by production prexy Jeff Robinov and Gregory Noveck, senior VP of creative affairs for DC Comics, who has served as a liaison between the comicbook publisher and the studio.

Some say Robinov's attention may be pulled in too many directions, given his other responsibilities, which include the rest of the studio's slate and marketing. Noveck formerly was Joel Silver's TV topper.

"We're having a lot of internal discussions on it," Horn says. "We haven't committed to any change at DC at this point," adding that both Warners and DC are committed to turning "the properties into viable movie product in an intelligent way so that we introduce them like planes on a runway. They have to be set up the right way and lined up the right way and all take off one at a time and fly safe and fly straight."

One high-profile property is "Justice League," which Warner Bros. had hoped would start production before the writers strike.

But given that it unites Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, the Flash, Green Arrow, Aquaman and Martian Manhunter, the studio is trying to figure out how such the pic (cast with younger actors) would affect its existing Batman and Superman franchises -- and whether the script respects how the characters play off each other in the DC universe.

To put it simply: the studio doesn't want to piss off the Comic-Con contingent.

"We're not off the notion of a Justice League," Robinov says. "There's a massive interest and knowledge in the comicbook industry and it takes time to sort of catch up and understand the characters and the history, where they've intersected with each other and what their worlds are. That's part of the education that we're going through."

When it comes to Batman, the future of the franchise is in Christopher Nolan's hands. That's what a successful reboot with "Batman Begins" and breaking records with "The Dark Knight" will do.

There's a deal for the director to helm a third pic, but he has yet to decide on whether to tackle it yet.

"We have no idea where Chris is going with this," Horn says. "We haven't had any conversations with him about it."

Either way, there's no question Warner Bros. will produce more superhero pics. The question is when.

"These are big, iconic characters," Noveck says. "So when you make them into a movie, you'd better be shooting for a pretty high standard. You're not always going to reach it, but you have to be shooting for it. We're going to make a Justice League movie, whether it's now or 10 years from now. But we're not going to do it and Warners is not going to do it until we know it's right."

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117990659.html?categoryid=13&cs=1
 
Why are they acting like this is brain surgery _ all they have to do is what Marvel did with Iron Man and take an interesting character, stick to the comic book story( why stray to far from what has made it so successful for close to 40 years or more) and a strong actor to carry the role(no Ben Affleck as Daredevil fiascos).

But eh main thing is keep the comic book and the movie closely tied and dont make up stories and origins, dont change costumes and do go for silly jokes and God Forbid dont make it boring, Superman Returns was incredibly boring. How can a character with that much strength and power be boring...:smh:
 
Why are they acting like this is brain surgery _ all they have to do is what Marvel did with Iron Man and take an interesting character, stick to the comic book story( why stray to far from what has made it so successful for close to 40 years or more) and a strong actor to carry the role(no Ben Affleck as Daredevil fiascos).

But eh main thing is keep the comic book and the movie closely tied and dont make up stories and origins, dont change costumes and do go for silly jokes and God Forbid dont make it boring, Superman Returns was incredibly boring. How can a character with that much strength and power be boring...:smh:

You're right Winslow, all they have to do is stick to the comic book story and it will be ok. Superman Returns was as boring as watching paint dry. They tried to make it into a love story and failed at that. If they want a good Superman movie just look at the Superman Animated Series from the late 90's, take the episodes when Darkseid was invading earth and you have your next Superman Movie.
 
As great as that sounds (seriously), people don't always recognize a great movie when they see it. Sometimes it needs the bullshit just to capture people attention. Granted, it can ruin the movie, but it's what will draw the typical movie-goer.
 
I never could get into DC Comics. Marvel and Image was my shit growing up. DC characters were/are boring and average with few exceptions. I'd rather read Marvel Universe and read about their character's powers, origins,etc.
 
I never could get into DC Comics. Marvel and Image was my shit growing up. DC characters were/are boring and average with few exceptions. I'd rather read Marvel Universe and read about their character's powers, origins,etc.



Im with you on that. Other than Batman I just could never get into DC characters. But if they make a good movie with a good buzz about it I will check it out.
 
Why are they acting like this is brain surgery _ all they have to do is what Marvel did with Iron Man and take an interesting character, stick to the comic book story( why stray to far from what has made it so successful for close to 40 years or more) and a strong actor to carry the role(no Ben Affleck as Daredevil fiascos).

But eh main thing is keep the comic book and the movie closely tied and dont make up stories and origins, dont change costumes and do go for silly jokes and God Forbid dont make it boring, Superman Returns was incredibly boring. How can a character with that much strength and power be boring...:smh:

that is not really what this article is about. It is more about the lack of production vehicle for DC properties as a whole. Warner Bros movie studios make all genres of film so studio execs don't focus on comic book movies because noone is truly geared to do so. The difference between them and Marvel is that MArvel now has a studio that is focused solely on producing MArvel Comics properties into film.
 
that is not really what this article is about. It is more about the lack of production vehicle for DC properties as a whole. Warner Bros movie studios make all genres of film so studio execs don't focus on comic book movies because noone is truly geared to do so. The difference between them and Marvel is that MArvel now has a studio that is focused solely on producing MArvel Comics properties into film.

Couldn't have said it better myself. The article was highlighting the fact that Marvel can do their projects in house vs. DCs inability to do the same thing. That allows them to produce movies faster and with their "Brain trust" in sync. Meaning they can better give the fans what they want.

Where DC has to jump through hurdles to get a studio to create their movie for them and often times (like the aforementioned Superman debacle) you'll have a director and writing team that aren't familiar with the source material so they make a "Hollywood film" - Which in turn bombs at the Box Office.
 
Last edited:
Why are they acting like this is brain surgery _ all they have to do is what Marvel did with Iron Man and take an interesting character, stick to the comic book story( why stray to far from what has made it so successful for close to 40 years or more) and a strong actor to carry the role(no Ben Affleck as Daredevil fiascos).

But eh main thing is keep the comic book and the movie closely tied and dont make up stories and origins, dont change costumes and do go for silly jokes and God Forbid dont make it boring, Superman Returns was incredibly boring. How can a character with that much strength and power be boring...:smh:

If that's the case, they probably shouldn't make another iron man movie. No other workable villains left. By the way... when did Batman where an all-black armor in the comics? And another point... How closely did the first two Supermans tie into the comic?

The key point is NOT sticking closely to the comics. That's a myth I see a lot of lately. The key is taking it seriously, not seeing it as a joke. Finding the people who get it, and not interfering for stupid reasons.

The only thing that people have done, finally, is to understand that comic-book readers are not just a fringe. You can't ignore them as a bunch of losers who don't influence the box-office. They are, from a marketing standpoint, ideally placed to drive or kill a film. Studios no longer ignore their wishes.

They also started hiring real directors and real actors. It used to be like it is here, they talk about Thor, then say "Triple H looks like him. So what if he can't act."

There will never be a catch-all. When it gets right down to it, these movies have succeeded or not succeeded on the same basis as other movies. Respect for the concept, unity of vision, dedication, and luck.
 
Back
Top