When I heard Iron Man was coming out, most of the non-comic people I talked to had no idea who he was. I'm talking about girls who are nerdy enough to play D&D and read Fables and Sandman. Now, I don't know if the Iron Man movie had much effect on getting new subscribers to Iron Man. I enjoyed the movie. I still have never read an Iron Man comic. (Does What if Iron Man were trapped in King Arthur's court count?)
DC really needs to make a push for more movies based on their content. Yes, they've done a bunch of things that aren't in the main DC universe. But why hasn't there been a Flash movie? Wonder Woman? My mother has no idea who Jonah Hex is. She knows who Wonder Woman is.
Of course, they need to make movies without Batman that don't suck. Not that they haven't made a few Batman movies that sucked back in the day.
One of DCs problems on the movie front is that they are owned by Warner Bros. So WB isn't willing to let any other studio make DC movies. On the other hand, they aren't willing to produce more than one movie at a time. Marvel on the other hand licensed out the production of different franchises to different studios. This let them produce Spiderman and Fantastic Four and X-Men all in a relative short amount of time and make bank. The new Spiderman movie is a result of the license deal about to expire. Still, it gave them the funds and courage to put together the movies leading up to Avengers, and in that time we'll have seen 1 Superman, 3 Batmans, and 1 Green Lantern movie.
I was curious so I made a list of movies since 2000:
Marvel
2000 X-Men
2002 Blade II, Men in Black 2, Spider-Man
2003 Daredevil, Hulk, X-Men 2
2004 Blade 3, Punisher, Spider-Man 2
2005 Elektra, Fantastic Four, Man-Thing
2006 X-Men 3
2007 Fantastic Four 2, Ghostrider, Spider-Man 3
2008 Hulk, Iron Man, Punisher 2
2009 X-Men: Wolverine
2010 Iron Man 2, Kick-Ass
2011 Captain America, Thor, X-Men: First Class
26 total, almost all from the main Marvel universe
DC
2002 Road to Perdition
2003 League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
2004 Catwoman
2005 Batman Begins, Constantine, History of Violence, V for Vendetta
2006 The Fountain, Superman Returns
2007 Stardust
2008 Dark Knight, Spirit
2009 Watchmen
2010 Jonah Hex, The Losers, Red
2011 Green Lantern
17 total
1/3 from the main DC Universe. Several hardly look like "comic" movies.
I think Marvel is winning at the moment. Which is a shame, since DC owns so many amazing characters. Not that I don't like some good Marvel too.
Edit: On the other hand, DC has been winning in the animated series department. Bring back Justice League Unlimited!
Well I'm reading on CBR that Wally and Iris aren't married.
So apparently Marriage seems to be equal to being a parapalygic in the DCnU. :/
On the one hand, that doesn't surprise me with the "younger" feel that they are going for. On the other hand, isn't Bart Allen still going to be Kid Flash? Isn't he Barry's descendant? Or will he just conveniently not know his family tree?
First Spidey, now Supes and even the Flash. Am I the only that thinks this is... bizarre, to say the least? I mean, yeesh, what do these editors have against marriage? It can't be hard to do stories with married couples, since they had been doing it for years now...
First Spidey, now Supes and even the Flash. Am I the only that thinks this is... bizarre, to say the least? I mean, yeesh, what do these editors have against marriage? It can't be hard to do stories with married couples, since they had been doing it for years now...
It does limit the types of stories you can do. Happily married couples are boring, literary speaking. Satisfying in real life, but you rarely see movies which are: Couple is in love. The End. It's either coming together, or falling apart. I don't really want to see a story about Lois cheating on Clark. Or vice versa.
Although this does leave Wally (not to mention his twins) in a strange position. Are they being erased? Was Wally never Kid Flash? It would be weird to have Wally married when Barry isn't.
The more I think about it, the more I think they should just give up on continuity completely. Most of my favorite stories are Elseworlds anyway.
|
I was curious so I made a list of movies since 2000:
Marvel
2000 X-Men
2002 Blade II, Men in Black 2, Spider-Man
2003 Daredevil, Hulk, X-Men 2
2004 Blade 3, Punisher, Spider-Man 2
2005 Elektra, Fantastic Four, Man-Thing
2006 X-Men 3
2007 Fantastic Four 2, Ghostrider, Spider-Man 3
2008 Hulk, Iron Man, Punisher 2
2009 X-Men: Wolverine
2010 Iron Man 2, Kick-Ass
2011 Captain America, Thor, X-Men: First Class26 total, almost all from the main Marvel universe
DC
2002 Road to Perdition
2003 League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
2004 Catwoman
2005 Batman Begins, Constantine, History of Violence, V for Vendetta
2006 The Fountain, Superman Returns
2007 Stardust
2008 Dark Knight, Spirit
2009 Watchmen
2010 Jonah Hex, The Losers, Red
2011 Green Lantern17 total
1/3 from the main DC Universe. Several hardly look like "comic" movies.
I think Marvel is winning at the moment. Which is a shame, since DC owns so many amazing characters. Not that I don't like some good Marvel too.
Edit: On the other hand, DC has been winning in the animated series department. Bring back Justice League Unlimited!
This is the kind of thing I was talking about. Marvel has more movies, and almost all are in the main universe. Dc does have a decent showing, hardly any of these are gonna push sales of comics for the company after the movie is released. Heck, even forget about comics. How about merchandising. How much do you think DC has made off of merchandising from The Losers, Red, Road to Perdition (I just watched it the other night and had no idea it was even a DC title), or A History of Violence? Im betting not much.
And sure, DC does lots of animated stuff, but its almost solely based on either Batman, Superman, a combo of the two, or the Justice League.
It does limit the types of stories you can do. Happily married couples are boring, literary speaking. Satisfying in real life, but you rarely see movies which are: Couple is in love. The End. It's either coming together, or falling apart. I don't really want to see a story about Lois cheating on Clark. Or vice versa.
I get the logic, but I don't agree with it. Just because a character is married doesn't mean that the marriage needs to be the focal point of drama. I personally prefer the way that Lois helped anchor Clark and supported him emotionally. I feel the same way about Mary Jane - it's cool to have a superhero with a confidant who he can trust and who can be in on the secret. It helps ground the character and give him a tie to the real world. But then, I'm married myself, and thus am not the target audience for most comics, apparently.
Although this does leave Wally (not to mention his twins) in a strange position. Are they being erased? Was Wally never Kid Flash? It would be weird to have Wally married when Barry isn't.
I'm quite surprised that Wally is even around in the new continuity. I thought DC had been trying to get rid of him since they brought Barry back.
The more I think about it, the more I think they should just give up on continuity completely. Most of my favorite stories are Elseworlds anyway.
I like continuity. The problem is when it becomes continuity porn. I hate stories that are about nothing but trying to make continuity work. Especially with iconic figures like superheroes, many of whom are recognizable to people who don't read comics, I think the ideal would be to keep things close to the core concept of a superhero while introducing changes that are simple to grasp.
For example, "Spider-Man is a college student now," is a lot easier for a newcomer to handle than, "Spider-Man derives his powers from a special connection with a spider totem, has organic webshooters and stingers, and has recently revealed his identity to the world."
Similarly, "Superman is married to Lois Lane," rather than, "Superman is having an existential crisis because of the destruction of his resurrected home world by the US government and is now walking around America burning down drug houses and quoting Henry David Thoreau out of context."
Continuity used correctly develops a character and provides a bonus to those who follow a comic book over the long term. But just because it exists doesn't mean that every single issue needs to reference ten years of history just to get started.
I know they get royalties for movies and graphic novels for stuff like Watchmen. Thats fantastic. The point Im making is that Watchmen is ONE VOUME. It costs you $20-30 to get the entire thing in TPB, and thats all there is. However, if they made a Flash movie (and I would be willing to put money the percentage of people who would think The Flash = Flash Gordon would be shrinking every year), then not only do they get movie royalties and everything else they get from Watchmen (which is likely a bad comparison for my point, considering Watchment is like the most popular TPB...What?
1) Complete series movies. DC/Marvel makes money on royalties from the sale of the movie. Also they make money on people going out and buying the graphic novels. It's like saying you shouldn't make movies of Jules Verne novels because they are standalone and he is dead.2) Make more movies with characters other than majorly recognizable names? That will go well. Hell, the movie this summer was the first major movie property with Green Lantern. He has been on direct-to-dvd stuff and the John Stewart Lantern was on JLA but there is basically never anything with the Lanterns. And who cares if anyone knows what titles a property belongs to? That's really irrelevant to how many people see the movie or who likes it. That's all marketing and production value - which was awful for Green Lantern, Jonah Hex, and Constantine, and even Watchmen really. Batman and Superman are big names. They don't care if people buy comic books after seeing those movies, they still get the royalties out of the merchandising. Ever see batman comics or novels promoted at a book store during a Batman release? I haven't. And they do big names because they are big names. More people will go see it with less marketing. The smaller the name, the higher the marketing costs. Even a Flash movie would require more marketing - and with half of everyone thinking it is Flash Gordon. Plus, there is only so much you can saturate the film...
A movie is not going to lure the average action movie fan into the bottomless pit of comics for any individual character. Graphic novels are easy to buy. They are a single purchase for a whole story. As stated earlier, comics have become too much of a web with decentralized storylines that just meander.
I was curious so I made a list of movies since 2000:
Marvel
2000 X-Men
2002 Blade II, Men in Black 2, Spider-Man
2003 Daredevil, Hulk, X-Men 2
2004 Blade 3, Punisher, Spider-Man 2
2005 Elektra, Fantastic Four, Man-Thing
2006 X-Men 3
2007 Fantastic Four 2, Ghostrider, Spider-Man 3
2008 Hulk, Iron Man, Punisher 2
2009 X-Men: Wolverine
2010 Iron Man 2, Kick-Ass
2011 Captain America, Thor, X-Men: First Class26 total, almost all from the main Marvel universe
DC
2002 Road to Perdition
2003 League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
2004 Catwoman
2005 Batman Begins, Constantine, History of Violence, V for Vendetta
2006 The Fountain, Superman Returns
2007 Stardust
2008 Dark Knight, Spirit
2009 Watchmen
2010 Jonah Hex, The Losers, Red
2011 Green Lantern17 total
1/3 from the main DC Universe. Several hardly look like "comic" movies.
I think Marvel is winning at the moment. Which is a shame, since DC owns so many amazing characters.
Not enough with name recognition. There is no point making comic book movies marketed as comic book movies with barely publicly recognized characters - like Jonah Hex. Batman and Superman are the easiest to work with and they still managed to screw up both of them 7/10th of the time. What DC characters do you propose they could turn into movies?
I just got a good look at the ad for Justice League. Jim Lee's art was terrible. What's happened to the guy?
And DC has hired Liefeld for a book? Why would anyone hire that man for anything?
|
|
A movie is not going to lure the average action movie fan into the bottomless pit of comics for any individual character. Graphic novels are easy to buy. They are a single purchase for a whole story. As stated earlier, comics have become too much of a web with decentralized storylines that just meander.
You completely ignored my other post where I talked about merchandising, after quoting deinol's post about what movies have come out.
Even if they dont buy into the comics themselves and just buy the trades, then guess what? Holy moly! Watchmen still only costs $20-30 for the entire thing, and *insert most in-universe character with no movie about them yet* has several trades which all cost in that same price range, meaning as long as there is more than ONE trade about this character/set of characters, DC will still make more money in the long run. So again, my point still holds.
Also, i wasnt talking about the average action movie fan. I meant kids.
Even if they dont buy into the comics themselves and just buy the trades, then guess what? Holy moly! Watchmen still only costs $20-30 for the entire thing, and *insert most in-universe character with no movie about them yet* has several trades which all cost in that same price range, meaning as long as there is more than ONE trade about this character/set of characters, DC will still make more money in the long run. So again, my point still holds.
Are you complaining about making movies of series that have ended because they have ended or are you saying we should make more movies of series that haven't ended so people can just buy the big books (that I have never seen sold anywhere).
And what kids? These movies are targeted at your average action movie fan, not children.
|
|
Even if they dont buy into the comics themselves and just buy the trades, then guess what? Holy moly! Watchmen still only costs $20-30 for the entire thing, and *insert most in-universe character with no movie about them yet* has several trades which all cost in that same price range, meaning as long as there is more than ONE trade about this character/set of characters, DC will still make more money in the long run. So again, my point still holds.Are you complaining about making movies of series that have ended because they have ended or are you saying we should make more movies of series that haven't ended so people can just buy the big books (that I have never seen sold anywhere).
And what kids? These movies are targeted at your average action movie fan, not children.
You havent seen comics/trades sold anywhere? Or do you mean anywhere outside of comic shops or bookstores?
Its not that they shouldnt make movies like Constantine( I know hes gonna be in JLA Dark, but what was he in before that?), but if you are going to make a movie out of one of your lesser known titles, which will be harder to market than Bats/Supes, then why go with Constantine, opposed to someone like Wonder Woman or The Flash who undoubtedly have more tpb titles than Constantine does. Even aside from actual comics/trades, Im sure a WW or Flash movie would sell a heck of alot more in merchandising rights than Constantine 2 would.
Also, sure the movies are targeted for action movie fans, but lots of kids still go to/get taken to see them. Then they wanna be them or play with them or read about them. Again, merchandising.
Its not that they shouldnt make movies like Constantine( I know hes gonna be in JLA Dark, but what was he in before that?), but if you are going to make a movie out of one of your lesser known titles, which will be harder to market than Bats/Supes, then why go with Constantine, opposed to someone like Wonder Woman or The Flash
Because if you are going to go with a lesser known character, go with one that is way lesser known and market it as a normal action movie. That way you won't turn off people and won't build the same hype for a mediocre movie. Also, Wonder Woman and the Flash are boring. What are you going to do with a movie based around either?
And I haven't seen anything except the graphic novels for major characters in bookstores or even local comic shops.
|
|
Because if you are going to go with a lesser known character, go with one that is way lesser known and market it as a normal action movie. That way you won't turn off people and won't build the same hype for a mediocre movie.
This is a good point, though I dont know that I agree that its the best choice. Ah well.
Also, Wonder Woman and the Flash are boring. What are you going to do with a movie based around either?
I dont read either of them personally, so I was using them as an example. I dont know what could be done with them for a movie for either one, but Im sure there are plenty of people who would love to see a WW or Flash movie.
And I haven't seen anything except the graphic novels for major characters in bookstores or even local comic shops.
I feel bad for comicbook fans who live in your area.
I feel bad for comicbook fans who live in your area.
The comic shops get new stuff regularly and generally have a collection of not so new stuff taking up space but I haven't seen any larger volumes out for sale. Well some, but not the comic shop has basically the same stuff you could find at Barnes & Noble or Books-a-million.
Not enough with name recognition. There is no point making comic book movies marketed as comic book movies with barely publicly recognized characters - like Jonah Hex. Batman and Superman are the easiest to work with and they still managed to screw up both of them 7/10th of the time. What DC characters do you propose they could turn into movies?
All of them. If you can take Iron Man and make him into a successful movie, you should be able to do that with anything.
Green Lantern should have been spectacular. I haven't seen it yet, but I hear it is only so-so. On the other hand, even so-so movies make money. DC has the rights to a ton of characters. Captain Marvel, Flash, Wonderwoman, Blue Beetle, Booster Gold, Hawkman, Birds of Prey, hell, even fricken Aquaman. There are countless characters to choose from.
Anything with a decent script and director will make money. Anything with a great script or director will be amazing. If DC wants to raise awareness for their comics, they should do comics based on their actual current lines. Sure, only a small fraction will be converted to comic subscribers. But if 1% of movie goers convert into comic followers, that's a huge boost for a comic line that is selling 10k copies a month. Any trades or action figures they sell on top of that is icing on the cake.
If I were WB/DC I would have greenlit a series of movies about the core Justice League characters in preparation for a Justice League movie as soon as I saw Marvel was doing it. Sure, Thor was only OK. But it still raised his name recognition so people will know who he is in the Avengers movie.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think DC does have one advantage, even if they don't know how to lever it.
Generations.
What I mean is that they do have younger heroes taking on the mantle of their elders (Flashes, Green Lanterns and, now, Batmen.)
Why not do, for example, a Batman trillogy that starts with Bruce, then movie two introduces a teen Robin (Dick/Tim or a hybrid) and then movie 3 ends with Bruce semi-retiring, and Robin either takes up the cowl (if you're selling the Bat-name) or becoming Nightwing/Red Robin (If the actor and the Robin character seem popular enough to support another franchise.) You then get more movies with Dick-as-the-lead, and whoever played Bruce can take time off to do other movies, with Bruce Wayne cameos, and maybe revisit the part in 10 years (or just go Batman Beyond with Bruce doing his remote advice thing)
While Wonder woman is a mess, Captain America proved WW II movies can sell. Do a Wonder Woman movie set then, then end it with a flash forward the birth of Diana. voila! you now have two timelines to make Wonder Woman movies in. Or even 1940's - 1960's WW movies and a modern TV show.
Same thing with Green Arrow/Arsenal, or Barry/Wally, etc. Heck you could do a superman movie that ends with Superman dying (ala Doomsday) and do another movie with the rise of the Supermen (the actor playing superman playing the Erradicator) and you could bust out Superboy and Steel in the seconf film, and see if either is popular enough to lead a movie of their own.
Likewise, a 1960's Green Lantern with Hal Jordan, a 1990's Green Lantern with John Stewart and a modern lantern with Kyle would work.
All of them. If you can take Iron Man and make him into a successful movie, you should be able to do that with anything.
Iron Man had an interesting origin story.
Green Lantern should have been spectacular. I haven't seen it yet, but I hear it is only so-so. On the other hand, even so-so movies make money. DC has the rights to a ton of characters. Captain Marvel, Flash, Wonderwoman, Blue Beetle, Booster Gold, Hawkman, Birds of Prey, hell, even fricken Aquaman. There are countless characters to choose from.
I already pointed out the dual problems that will probably prevent Captain Marvel from coming to screens, though that probably has the best stuff to work with. Aquaman probably second best. Blue Beetle probably has potential but not name recognition.
And they can't do a JLA movie because of the separate Superman and Batman movies, and never mind licensing for any stuff they are planning to bring to television.
I think DC does have one advantage, even if they don't know how to lever it.
Generations.
What I mean is that they do have younger heroes taking on the mantle of their elders (Flashes, Green Lanterns and, now, Batmen.)
Why not do, for example, a Batman trillogy that starts with Bruce, then movie two introduces a teen Robin (Dick/Tim or a hybrid) and then movie 3 ends with Bruce semi-retiring, and Robin either takes up the cowl (if you're selling the Bat-name) or becoming Nightwing/Red Robin (If the actor and the Robin character seem popular enough to support another franchise.) You then get more movies with Dick-as-the-lead, and whoever played Bruce can take time off to do other movies, with Bruce Wayne cameos, and maybe revisit the part in 10 years (or just go Batman Beyond with Bruce doing his remote advice thing)
While Wonder woman is a mess, Captain America proved WW II movies can sell. Do a Wonder Woman movie set then, then end it with a flash forward the birth of Diana. voila! you now have two timelines to make Wonder Woman movies in. Or even 1940's - 1960's WW movies and a modern TV show.
Same thing with Green Arrow/Arsenal, or Barry/Wally, etc. Heck you could do a superman movie that ends with Superman dying (ala Doomsday) and do another movie with the rise of the Supermen (the actor playing superman playing the Erradicator) and you could bust out Superboy and Steel in the seconf film, and see if either is popular enough to lead a movie of their own.
Likewise, a 1960's Green Lantern with Hal Jordan, a 1990's Green Lantern with John Stewart and a modern lantern with Kyle would work.
That is all confusing and unproductive.
And they can't do a JLA movie because of the separate Superman and Batman movies, and never mind licensing for any stuff they are planning to bring to television.
What do you mean licensing? DC is owned by Warner Bros. So all the movies are WB. All the cartoons are WB. If they made a top level plan, they could tie all the marketing together.
I disagree that Iron Man had an interesting origin story. They took his origin and made it into an interesting story.
Then again, I tend to think origin stories are mostly lame. I'd much rather you spend 10 minutes of the movie introducing the character, and then just get on with a real story.
What do you mean licensing? DC is owned by Warner Bros. So all the movies are WB. All the cartoons are WB. If they made a top level plan, they could tie all the marketing together.
They have to hold characters back from here or there based on where they are going to use them next. That's why all the difference tv shows had certain characterizations. Like no Aquaman in the Wonder Woman vs Captain Ersatz Black Manta in the one JLA episode, and no Robin in The Batman. Etc
I disagree that Iron Man had an interesting origin story. They took his origin and made it into an interesting story.
Building a mech suit to break out after being captured by a bunch of terrorists is pretty fertile ground to work with. Green Lantern's origin couldn't possibly be any more boring. Nor Superman's. Batman's is give or take. The Hulk's has potential but they always FUBAR it.
Then again, I tend to think origin stories are mostly lame. I'd much rather you spend 10 minutes of the movie introducing the character, and then just get on with a real story.
Don't count on that happened after the Incredible Hulk didn't do as well as they wanted.
scanning the thread... i saw the words "Constantine 2"
Are they doing a Constantine 2? (i loved Constantine 1, one of my fave movies, and one that gives me hope that there may be hope in the future beyond this transformer fiasco for our beloved "TheBeef" )
:)
I think they should make a movie where the only characters are ones played by Robert Pattinson and Shia Lebouf and all they do is sit at a small table across from one another and do their not acting act.
|
|
Update on the Batgirl: The Killing Joke still happened and she was Oracle. Now she will go through physical rehabilitation and become a more seasoned and nuanced character because she had these incredible and diverse experiences.
So it happened. And though I do recognize her as a symbol for the disabled, it doesnt really wash in a world of super science. Bats himself got his back broke and got rehab and is up and walking. No reason in universe why Barb wouldnt want to get better and be the best she can. So should the same be for Prof X. Who's in and out of the chair as much as Iron Man has been on and off the wagon.
I say give it 6 issues, you dont like it, dump it. I gave Brand New Day a whole year before my intelligence was throughly insulted and violated past the point of no return. And after Fear Itself? Marvel is dead to me.
Its gotten to the point where like althelete's; I just follow the writers now. Dan Abnett on Resurrection Man? Yes Please!
Update on the Batgirl: The Killing Joke still happened and she was Oracle. Now she will go through physical rehabilitation and become a more seasoned and nuanced character because she had these incredible and diverse experiences.
So it happened. And though I do recognize her as a symbol for the disabled, it doesnt really wash in a world of super science. Bats himself got his back broke and got rehab and is up and walking. No reason in universe why Barb wouldnt want to get better and be the best she can. So should the same be for Prof X. Who's in and out of the chair as much as Iron Man has been on and off the wagon.
Here's a source for others who are interested.
That's actually more infuriating because it's Gail Simone reporting that this history is going to remain but suddenly she is going to magically be cured, and it was Gail Simone adamantly arguing a not long ago about why she strongly felt Barbara Gordon shouldn't be cured (and wrote an excellent storyline in BoP where she had a "miracle" of being able to wiggle her toes, to nail home the point). Which just makes her a hypocrite and a sellout.
Not to mention, Barbara + Killing Joke + Walking Again should = Oracle walking, not Batgirl, distaff counterpart to an entirely different hero.
I hated Oracle losing her character history, but this is actually worse. (All I want is Oracle to be Oracle, but I realize at this point I am not going to get what I want.)
I say give it 6 issues, you dont like it, dump it.
I used to give DC that much time and I'm tired of being disappointed, and I've honestly already been tiring of a number of things going with them for some time (infinite Infinite Crises, Wonder Woman post issue 600, etc.). I'll wait for the trades and reviews from people I trust, then I'll flip through at the store and see what I think, and THEN, if it looks good, I'll buy. But I am NOT giving DC money blindly hoping it'll be good; I've put my hand in the fire before and gotten burned, I'm not going to poke it again.
That's actually more infuriating because it's Gail Simone reporting that this history is going to remain but suddenly she is going to magically be cured, and it was Gail Simone adamantly arguing a not long ago about why she strongly felt Barbara Gordon shouldn't be cured (and wrote an excellent storyline in BoP where she had a "miracle" of being able to wiggle her toes, to nail home the point). Which just makes her a hypocrite and a sellout.
There's a longer interview over here which goes into Gail's stance on the issue. She tries to be honest about her thought process going into this change. The main points are that A) it would happen whether she was on board or not and B) since it is part of a major shift for all the characters, it isn't just the trivializing story that it would have been in isolation. So she would rather be the one to write the transition, as Barbara is still her favorite character. Some people look at that as selling out, others look at it as making the best of things.
I for one look forward to where she takes the character from here. I haven't read a Gail Simone story I didn't like. I worry most about what Birds of Prey will be like without Oracle or Gail on the team.
That's actually more infuriating because it's Gail Simone reporting that this history is going to remain but suddenly she is going to magically be cured, and it was Gail Simone adamantly arguing a not long ago about why she strongly felt Barbara Gordon shouldn't be cured (and wrote an excellent storyline in BoP where she had a "miracle" of being able to wiggle her toes, to nail home the point). Which just makes her a hypocrite and a sellout.There's a longer interview over here which goes into Gail's stance on the issue. She tries to be honest about her thought process going into this change. The main points are that A) it would happen whether she was on board or not and B) since it is part of a major shift for all the characters, it isn't just the trivializing story that it would have been in isolation. So she would rather be the one to write the transition, as Barbara is still her favorite character. Some people look at that as selling out, others look at it as making the best of things.
I for one look forward to where she takes the character from here. I haven't read a Gail Simone story I didn't like. I worry most about what Birds of Prey will be like without Oracle or Gail on the team.
Like I wrote last page, that's the way I see it too. She doesn't like the change and would be against it... if she could. But she's going with it so she can try to do damage control.
Meanwhile, it seems anyone not working for DC thinks the reboot is a bad idea, from Todd MacFarlane to Mark Millar.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I worry most about what Birds of Prey will be like without Oracle or Gail on the team.
Birds of Prey isn't going to make a lick of sense. "They're going after the crooks that the others heroes can't touch." Fine, except they're in Gotham City. The villains that Batman can't touch? What?? Because he knows the city too well? Because he's too hamstrung by police bureaucracy? Because he's off fighting bigger menaces, like the Ventriloquist and Penguin? (So, we're getting the Birds of Prey going after the guys that make Riddler look tough?)
Other comic titles will actually cling to Birds of Prey. That's how much it's going to suck.
I worry most about what Birds of Prey will be like without Oracle or Gail on the team.Birds of Prey isn't going to make a lick of sense. "They're going after the crooks that the others heroes can't touch." Fine, except they're in Gotham City. The villains that Batman can't touch? What?? Because he knows the city too well? Because he's too hamstrung by police bureaucracy? Because he's off fighting bigger menaces, like the Ventriloquist and Penguin? (So, we're getting the Birds of Prey going after the guys that make Riddler look tough?)
Other comic titles will actually cling to Birds of Prey. That's how much it's going to suck.
HEY! Riddler's the MAN! You take that back!!!!
I'ts a shame the Riddler's gone back to villany. I liked 'Riddler, P.I.' as an idea.
Plus putting him on the side of angels (or at least self serving) would have given a chance to revisit the Cluemaster and make him less of a Riddler clone.
One big + 1. Riddler works far better as a private dick (in every sense of the word) than villain.
Meanwhile, it seems anyone not working for DC thinks the reboot is a bad idea, from Todd MacFarlane to Mark Millar.
Oddly enough, both of those interviews are about how rolling out the new launch all at once is a mistake. Not that changing continuity or rebooting is a mistake. The fact that launching 52 titles means a lot of media attention all at once, but nobody can afford to buy that many at once. So unknown or less popular titles like Hawk and Dove are going to suffer when the choice is that or Batman/Superman/Justice League. I know that I for one won't pick up more than 5 or so issues come September.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meanwhile, it seems anyone not working for DC thinks the reboot is a bad idea, from Todd MacFarlane to Mark Millar.Oddly enough, both of those interviews are about how rolling out the new launch all at once is a mistake. Not that changing continuity or rebooting is a mistake. The fact that launching 52 titles means a lot of media attention all at once, but nobody can afford to buy that many at once. So unknown or less popular titles like Hawk and Dove are going to suffer when the choice is that or Batman/Superman/Justice League. I know that I for one won't pick up more than 5 or so issues come September.
Hawk and Dove is going to loose out because of Rob Liefeld.
Hawk and Dove is going to loose out because of Rob Liefeld.
True, but what about all the other titles? Firestorm, Mister Terrific, Static Shock, Blackhawks, Blue Beetle, Grifter, OMAC, Demon Knights, I Vampire, Vodoo? I'm sure there will be a few that do surprisingly well. If they have good stories. But if every comic fan pics 10 titles to follow, there's going to be a significant number cancelled after 6 months.
I know I certainly can't afford to pick up $150 worth of comics every month. So unless an enormous amount of new readers show up in September, I expect most of these to look more like mini-series.
|
Here's another listing of the 52 titles. Hmmm. What I'll probably do is purchase all the titles through their first story arcs (4-6 issues), then make my final selection which titles to follow (if any).
|
|
That is all confusing and unproductive.
Actually, it isnt. Just cause you disagree doesnt make it a bad idea.
Im really trying to figure out if you are just a huge Marvel fanboy trying to bash on the prospct of DC doing more movies which will dominate Marvel titles (like Dark Knight did), or if you are just trollin, trying to see how long itll take before someone snaps.
Also, @ Purple Dragon Knight: I used the idea of a 'Constantine 2' as something DC shouldnt do, and should instead focus on stuff like Wonder Woman, Flash, etc. I guess they would be working on one, but I really hope they arent, lol.
That is all confusing and unproductive.Actually, it isnt. Just cause you disagree doesnt make it a bad idea.
Im really trying to figure out if you are just a huge Marvel fanboy trying to bash on the prospct of DC doing more movies which will dominate Marvel titles (like Dark Knight did), or if you are just trollin, trying to see how long itll take before someone snaps.
Also, @ Purple Dragon Knight: I used the idea of a 'Constantine 2' as something DC shouldnt do, and should instead focus on stuff like Wonder Woman, Flash, etc. I guess they would be working on one, but I really hope they arent, lol.
That is confusing and unproductive because it is confusing and unproductive. Comics might be able to get away with that kind of nonsense. And really popular books too, but it is WAY too disjointed for a movie series. Not to mention I am pretty sure none of that happened to begin with, so you are going to be pissing off comic fanboys and people who like movies that make sense. Moviegoers don't like change. No one wants to see Batman: Nightwing Rises where the whole movie is about Nightwing.
Don't even get me started on your dual timeline proposal. That has been tried in at least 3 movies I can think of having read the reviews of and it was panned in all three as hard to follow, contributing nothing to the story, and otherwise throwing people off track by bouncing in between era of time. If you want to be in the past and the future, you get a Delorean.A general Green Lantern series is almost as bad. A Green Lantern Corps movie might work for an animated movie direct to DVD or TV, but it won't work in theatre. Each one being a character piece of a DIFFERENT character screws up continuity and comic fanboys won't go see the one for the character they don't like and if any single one bombs, the follow up movies won't get made. So you are planning a grand time and generation spanning epic, only to get canned in a single movie and the whole thing drowns.
I will add terrible to confusing and unproductive.
wanders through thread
|
|
First off, the dual timeline thing wasnt my post. It was Matthew Morris. I was just defending his idea, or part of it at least.
As for the Batman thing, I can see the appeal to it, but I agree with you, not many people would like it. Bruce Wayne is Batman, plain and simple. Even as popular as the current run of Batman and Robin is, and Batman Bayond was, I dont think it would do well as a movie. Even if it was a third, and done like Batman Beyond, with Bruce taking an advisory role.
As for your "none of that happened to begin with, so you are going to be pissing off comic fanboys" comment, I cant think of a single comicbook movie that takes comic word for word, shot for shot. There is always going to be director influence in the visuals, and differences in the screenplay from the comic. Most of the stuff in the movies is vastly different from any take on any comic or tpb, so it not happening in the comics is old news. Fanboys will always get their knickers in a bunch about the piddly little details, so that is nothing new either.
As much as I did enjoy the Green Lantern movie, if they go too big with it, it probably wont be done very well, cause there are too many people to follow for the bigger stories.
Also, what 3 movies can you think of with the different timeline thing? Only one I can think of is Captain America, and I woudnt really call that different timelines.
First off, the dual timeline thing wasnt my post. It was Matthew Morris. I was just defending his idea, or part of it at least.
My post was in response to Morris' post. Why do you think I quoted it when I made my post? I don't even know what your complaint is now.
You quoted my post, not Morris' and said 'your dual timeline proposal', indicating it was mine.
Yours or someone else's, isn't really important.