[Movies] The DC Cinematic Universe - The David Zazlav Dumpster Fire.
Yeah, I heard rumors about that in conjunction with the next Batman movie. Rumor is it will have the Red Hood (Jason Todd) as its main villain.
"Shit, our writing and directing sucks! What do we do?"
"Calm down! Just pack in as many characters from the comic book as you can. Even Snyder can't fuck it up then."
"Will that work? Is that how you make good comic book movies?"
"Hell if I know. I heard once that Marvel tries to get talented filmmakers and have fun with it, but that's just silly talk! Now, we need 7 more villains, 142 more CGI explosions, make sure Batman has more guns, and let's get more brooding! Oh, and make sure the film is so dark people can barely see anything. Audiences love that shit... I think..."
"Calm down! Just pack in as many characters from the comic book as you can. Even Snyder can't fuck it up then."
"Will that work? Is that how you make good comic book movies?"
"Hell if I know. I heard once that Marvel tries to get talented filmmakers and have fun with it, but that's just silly talk! Now, we need 7 more villains, 142 more CGI explosions, make sure Batman has more guns, and let's get more brooding! Oh, and make sure the film is so dark people can barely see anything. Audiences love that shit... I think..."
Maybe this is in response to Deadpool doing so well too. "Oh, so audiences like non-stop swear words and lots of boob shots? Damn! Our movie has actual conversations, and not a single fuck in it! Call Zach Snyder and tell him we're fixing the script a bit and doing some reshoots. And someone tell Gal Gadot she's going to have to do a few topless scenes."
The story started with a report from Drew McWeeny who has heard from unnamed sources that the reaction from test audiences have been mixed. Batman and Lex Luther were well received, but the rest of the movie was not. He then went on to make some predictions about WB/DC will have to redo their entire movie slate -- moving Justice League back and putting a solo Batman movie in its place.
http://www.hitfix.com/the-dartboard...d-dcs-entire-slate-be-in-jeopardy-fandemonium
The BatmanOnFilm story is a reaction to that story -- which is more speculation. They also have updated the article, stating that they did not think the movie would be too smart for audiences, just that WB/DC was a little nervous because the movie was more serious than typical "popcorn fluff". (BoF)
So far, there really only has been the one story. The news media has picked up that one story and repeated it and speculated on it.
What I think has to make WB/DC nervous is worrying about another story. Right now, the film doesn't have the prerelease buzz problem of Green Lantern, but one more story could put it over the edge.
http://www.hitfix.com/the-dartboard...d-dcs-entire-slate-be-in-jeopardy-fandemonium
The BatmanOnFilm story is a reaction to that story -- which is more speculation. They also have updated the article, stating that they did not think the movie would be too smart for audiences, just that WB/DC was a little nervous because the movie was more serious than typical "popcorn fluff". (BoF)
So far, there really only has been the one story. The news media has picked up that one story and repeated it and speculated on it.
What I think has to make WB/DC nervous is worrying about another story. Right now, the film doesn't have the prerelease buzz problem of Green Lantern, but one more story could put it over the edge.
Given how 50/50 split audiences were on Man of Steel, many of whom like myself disliked it so much that they have no interest in this one, I don't like Superman/Batman's chances. It'll still make money, but I don't think it's going to make near the amount of money that WB originally had hoped. Not when Deadpool is raking in the dough and Civil War is on its way, both of which manage to capture the essence of their respective characters almost spot on.
Again, DC needs to take some chances and get those fucking B-list films out. A fun, family friendly (but with JUST a touch of desperation) Captain Marvel movie would do a lot to build more trust in the franchise. Give us a funny buddy cop Blue Beetle/Booster Gold movie. How about a Modern supernatural noir movie with The Question? DC executives need to remember that before their movies Ironman was an unknown outside of comic fans, Thor was a weird 70's tv show, Captain America was at best vague cultural icon, the Hulk had two failed movies, and NO ONE knew who the fuck Antman and The Guardians of the Galaxy were. STOP SWINGING YOUR BIG DICK AROUND, DC. You're not ready.
I'd venture to suggest that Batman and Superman have much greater name recognition among non-comic fans though, compared to Deadpool and Civil War. The casual fan demographic would probably be the main moneymaker for this movie.
My guess is that BvS will rake in huge amounts of money. Will it meet WB's expectations? Hard to say. But there's very little chance of this movie flopping commercially, not when it's got "Batman" and "Superman" in the title.
See, the name value argument might have worked better before Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man, and Deadpool all made a handsome profit. Though one could argue GotG and Ant-Man did well because flying under the Marvel banner made people confident that they'd be good movies. Marvel has built up a trust with their audience that, even if their movies aren't quite as good as the others (like, say, Iron Man 2 or arguably Thor 2), they're still much more hit than miss. And even their "bad" ones are still fun and watchable. Not only does WB not have that built up trust, but they've in fact lost much of that trust from, say, people like me that would ordinarily be first in line for a new Superman or DC movie.
Right now, though, Superman's name value is severely tainted after Man of Steel. I could be wrong, but I believe I read that WB expected Man of Steel to do Avengers-level money. It didn't. And now they're tossing Batman in there to salvage things. But as the trailers make it appear that they haven't learned a damn thing about why Man of Steel split the audience. Batman's name is still good, obviously, but that seems to be the only superhero that WB knows how to market (now, at least; not so much in the Batman & Robin days).
As I said, I'm sure it'll still make money. Probably still enough to warrant more movies. I just don't see it raking in the money like other comic book properties have. I highly doubt it'll flop (as much as I hope it will) but I also doubt it's going to do the numbers WB wants it to.
Someone tell WB/DC that serious does not equal smart or mature.
Wait, were we trying to make me actually go to the movie after all?
fade
Staff member
Captain Marvel would be a hard movie to make, I think. It's a hard comic, too, because it has such a dichotomy of elements. You've got fun, fancy-free Marvels fighting an arch who is brutally, fatally serious. I guess you could take cues from successful movies like Kung Fu Panda, but even those had to nerf the baddie at the end.
They are already planning a Captain Marvel movie and have Dwayne Johnson onboard to be Black Adam. But really, even Guardians of the Galaxy killed it's villain. If you embrace the silliness a bit, the movie will work but it only works as long as you are willing to accept that inherent silliness.
Honestly, while I do want a Captain Marvel film to eventually happen (and who knows how long it will be until we get it, considering how long it's been lingering in development hell), I'd be most interested in seeing how they would handle Dr. Sivana. While more recent takes try to inject a dose of Lex Luthor by giving him a company, he's honestly sort of made to be the rogue mad scientist he started as.
You'd pretty much have to, now that Thurl Ravenscroft has passed away.
It's a tradition in superhero movies. "The Big Bad Dies At The End."
On television, they are defeated and sent to jail/asylum/whatever. In movies? They die.
--Patrick
Captain Marvel (Shazam! now for the most part) would be one of the most confusing things that the non-Comic audience ever encountered.
"Captain Marvel"? Cool, a new Marvel movie!
No, it's actually a DC/Warner Bros movie.
But it says "Marvel" right in the name!
Yep, but this character existed before Marvel Comics did.
But "Marvel" is right there!
Yeah, it's confusing, even DC pretty much just refers to him as Shazam! now.
Oh, I remember watching Shazam! on Saturday mornings when I was a kid!
"Captain Marvel"? Cool, a new Marvel movie!
No, it's actually a DC/Warner Bros movie.
But it says "Marvel" right in the name!
Yep, but this character existed before Marvel Comics did.
But "Marvel" is right there!
Yeah, it's confusing, even DC pretty much just refers to him as Shazam! now.
Oh, I remember watching Shazam! on Saturday mornings when I was a kid!
It is almost certain the movie would be called "The Power of Shazam!" or "Shazam!: First Thunder". But yes, the naming thing has always been an issue... mostly because both the words Marvel and SHAZAM are tied to different properties now. As much as I prefer the name Captain Marvel, it's time to bury that name and get on with marketing him properly.
I wouldn't even risk the audience confusion with the name when there are people who couldn't figure out if Deadpool's movie is in Marvel's canon or with X-Men, despite there being X-Men in the Deadpool movie. Marvel's already planning a Captain Marvel film, so going with Shazam would just be the better choice.
Indeed. Not even DC is calling him Captain Marvel anymore. With the new 52, they changed the character so now, rather than just saying the word "Shazam" to change, Billy has to say it with good intentions. Thus, Shazam can be his name.
Which is such a simple, common sense change I'm not sure why it didn't happen in the 80's.
Saw a Darkbat vs Supergrim : Dark of Grimdark commercial last night that basically had Superman act kind of like a mob enforcer. You have Clark Kent talking about how "The Bat Vigilante is out of control" and "the press needs to do something about it". Well, Clark, actually the role of the press isn't to set public policy, it's to inform the public. Now unfortunately that's rare anymore, especially with so many news outlets being owned by the same corporations, but honestly, that's just a stupid line. The press doesn't DO things, it REPORTS on things. And it seems weird to me that a Pseudo-New York paper would be fixated on a Pseudo-Chicago based vigilante who mostly beats up street criminals and organized crime. Mostly, though, it's just a setup for Morpheus to say "No one is interested in seeing Clark Kent take on The Batman." Because at this point the entire audience is supposed to go "HA HA HA BUT THAT IS THE POINT OF THE MOVIE BAHHHH BAHHH BAHHH". Then a couple of quick cuts, then a shot of Superman wrecking the Batmobile and pulling Batman out of it. Then he says, "The next time they shine that light, don't answer it. The Bat is dead, capice? He sleeps wit' da fishes, fugghedaboudit. I'm making you an offer you can't refuse." First off, the bat-signal is used when the police figure out they're in over their heads and need some unofficial backup. So Superman's basically saying, "Yeah, the next time the police need re-inforcements, fuck 'em and whoever they're trying to help." Heroic, isn't it?
Honestly, I think that was the luckiest break for Marvel. I think if Disney had the rights to all their heroes, they would've just stuck with Spider-Man and X-Men and maybe a Hulk Movie. Instead, being forced to use their less popular heroes meant that they had to work to make sure people would like them instead of just relying on there already being a massive base of Spider-Man fans.
I'm sure I've posted this before, but ...He's only repeating what Ma Kent taught him.
Saw that bit of it on Facebook; yay writing.