Time Warner Creating "DC Entertainment" Unit (Finally!)
Jason Todd
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-warner10-2009sep10,0,1779787.story
Warner Bros. hopes to cure a case of superhero envy.
After years of lagging rival Marvel Entertainment in adapting comic-
book properties for the big screen and other media, the Burbank studio
unveiled a major restructuring of its DC Comics unit Wednesday that
will bring its operations under tighter control.
The move is an effort by Warner Bros. and corporate parent Time Warner
Inc. to implement a new strategy for DC Comics, which will face
stiffer competition from a steroid-charged Marvel as a result of Walt
Disney Co.'s deal last week to acquire it for $4 billion.
Diane Nelson, a top brand manager who has overseen Warner's lucrative
"Harry Potter" franchise since 1999, has been put in charge of the
newly named DC Entertainment with a mandate to better exploit its
properties across the studio's movie, television, interactive, digital
and consumer products businesses.
"This is the structural iteration of what we have been trying to
accomplish for a long time," said Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer.
"We think it is important for Warner Bros. to exercise appropriate
control over these properties, because they are highly valued assets
of our company."
For the four decades that Warner has owned DC, the publisher of such
classic comics as "Superman," "Batman" and "Wonder Woman," the New
York publisher has operated largely independently of the studio.
As superhero movies have become one of the most profitable genres in
Hollywood, tensions between DC and Warner have contributed to the
studio's inability to match the success of Marvel, which has scored on
the big screen with such A-list characters as Spider-Man and lesser-
known ones such as Iron Man and X-Men.
"It almost appears as if Warner Bros. were just buying DC now and
deciding what to do with it," said Gareb Shamus, chief executive of
Wizard Entertainment, which publishes a magazine following the comic-
book industry. "This move is going to be great for Warner because it
firmly puts the characters in control of the people who make movies
and television."
Numerous DC properties, including "Wonder Woman," "Justice League" and
"The Flash," have languished in development at Warner Bros. for years,
with little coordination among the studio's producers and executives
and the comic-book publisher. The unit's top development executive had
reported directly to DC Publisher Paul Levitz rather than to anyone at
Warner.
In one notable example, the CW Network, which Warner Bros. co-owns,
last year announced plans to produce a show based on Batman's
sidekick, Robin. Several months later it was killed after Motion
Picture Group President Jeff Robinov and "Dark Knight" director
Christopher Nolan, who hadn't been consulted, expressed their
disapproval, according to people familiar with the situation.
Under the new structure, Nelson will report to Robinov. Levitz is
moving to a consulting role.
"DC has been a publishing company, but I think it has the potential to
do more," Nelson said. "I come into this not as a comic-book fan per
se but someone who knows Warner Bros. and how to bring value to the DC
properties."
The new DC chief has been Warner's point person for everything "Harry
Potter" over the last 10 years. The franchise, adapted from the books
by J.K. Rowling, has been the most successful in the studio's history,
generating more than $5.4 billion in worldwide box office and billions
more from DVDs, video games and other media.
But the move is not without risk. Comic-book fans are sure to be wary
of a corporate executive taking control of their beloved characters
and will be watching closely to see whom Nelson selects to replace
Levitz and run DC's publishing arm.
Warner has had a mixed history with the DC properties it has adapted
for other media.
Its biggest success, 2008's "The Dark Knight," generated more than $1
billion in worldwide ticket sales and was a top DVD seller. The CW
Network's "Smallville," based on the early life of Superman, is
entering its ninth season. "Batman: Arkham Asylum," a recent video
game co-published by Warner Bros. Interactive, has sold nearly 2
million units in less than a month, a major hit.
However, the studio's "Watchmen" movie released in March was a box-
office disappointment, 2006's costly "Superman Returns" wasn't
successful enough to merit another sequel, and 2004's "Catwoman" film
was a major flop.
The next movie up is "Jonah Hex," a supernatural western that has just
completed production. Currently filming is the military-commando tale
"The Losers." Warner's next major superhero movie will be "The Green
Lantern," starring Ryan Reynolds, which begins shooting March 15 for
release in the spring of 2011. A third Nolan-directed Batman movie is
in development.
A large part of Nelson's strategy will be not only to exploit the
highest-profile characters but also to identify lesser-known ones with
potential to be used in movies, TV, games and other media, as Marvel
has successfully done with second-tier properties like "Iron Man."
"Before, DC as a publishing entity in New York was a repository of
assets accessed by the motion picture group, TV, games and consumer
products," said Warner President Alan Horn. With the reorganization,
he said, "there will be much more cross-pollination."
**********
Last week, I said DC clearly needed one strong hand in handling
scripts and production. I'm not sure Nelson is actually that person,
(if she's still going to have to report to Robinov, that still leaves
a level of beauracracy) , but at least this is a move in the right
direction. The Marvel/Disney merger *definitely* lit a fire under
someone's ass.
Jason "Wonder Twins - The Movie???" Todd
David E. Powell
> Warner shakes up DC Comics to compete with Marvel
>
>
Snip Awesome
> Last week, I said DC clearly needed one strong hand in handling
> scripts and production. I'm not sure Nelson is actually that person,
> (if she's still going to have to report to Robinov, that still leaves
> a level of beauracracy) , but at least this is a move in the right
> direction. The Marvel/Disney merger *definitely* lit a fire under
> someone's ass.
>
> Jason "Wonder Twins - The Movie???" Todd
Team up with Roland Emmerich and have a "Day After Tomorrow" type deal
when the Ice Wonder Twin goes nuts.
Gr�e
9d4e-d89...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> After years of lagging rival Marvel Entertainment in adapting comic-
> book properties for the big screen and other media,
This, I don't agree with. Recently, maybe, but it wasn't until Spider-Man
made it big, that Marvel began getting movie deals for its characters.
Before that, DC had a Batman TV series, a Wonder-Woman TV series, Lois
and Clark, Superboy, Smallville, The Flash TV series, Batman movies,
Superman Movies, Swamp Thing movies and TV series, Super Friends
cartoons, Batman cartoons, Superman cartoons, and all kinds of other
stuff. They didn't branch out too far from the core characters, though.
Marvel had a flop Punisher movie, an direct-to-home-video Captain America
movie, an unreleasable Fantastic Four movie, and Spider-Man and his
amazing friends cartoon, with a couple of bad TV movies, like Spider-Man,
Captain America, and Nick Fury. Their lone success was The Incredible
Hulk TV series, which gave us a few good TV movies after the series run,
which featured Daredevil and Thor. To be honset, they are still hit and
miss, even now. Spider-Man 3 sucked, both of the Fantastic Four movies
were iffy, X-Men 3 was only so-so, one decent Punisher movie followed by
a pretty bad one, a really cheesy Ghost Rider flick, a downright horrible
Daredevil and its horrible sidekick Electra, and a hard-to-watch Hulk
movie...it wasn't until Spider-Man 2 that they started getting their act
together, X Men 2 was awesome, a really good Hulk reboot, and an
excellant Iron Man really pulled things together. Marvel doing their own
movies was a step in the right direction.
Still, for all their successes The Dark Knight kicked all of their asses.
Superman Returns sucked, though.
> Marvel, which has scored on the big screen with such A-list characters
> as Spider-Man and lesser- known ones such as Iron Man and X-Men.
I take it that the writer of this is just talking out of his ass. Lesser
known to whom by whom? I guess he may be comparing them to Spider-Man,
but that doesn't mean they are "lesser known" exactly.
> Levitz is moving to a consulting role.
In other words, he's getting canned.
> But the move is not without risk. Comic-book fans are sure to be wary
> of a corporate executive taking control of their beloved characters
> and will be watching closely to see whom Nelson selects to replace
> Levitz and run DC's publishing arm.
Meh. How bad can they do?
rwa2play (Lost mode on)
> Jason Todd <janklowic...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:8a022d26-2379-467d-
> 9d4e-d89aee56f...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
Ummm did you forgot the craptacularness that were "Constantine" and
"Catwoman?"
Granted, Marvel's movies have been six of miss, half-dozen of hit.
The hit financially that Marvel took with their releases are far
smaller than the one WB took with "Catwoman," "Constantine" and
especially with SR.
Jason Todd
> Jason Todd <janklowic...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:8a022d26-2379-467d-
> 9d4e-d89aee56f...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > book properties for the big screen and other media,
>
> This, I don't agree with. Recently, maybe, but it wasn't until Spider-Man
> made it big, that Marvel began getting movie deals for its characters.
X-Men came first though, paving the way for Spidey.
>
> Before that, DC had a Batman TV series,
2 seasons in the 60s, and they STILL can't get it out on DVD
a Wonder-Woman TV series
in the 70s,
, Lois
> and Clark, Superboy, Smallville,
All variations on the Superman mythos, from teh 80s, 90s and 00s
The Flash TV series,
1 season in 1990
Batman movies,
The one big consistent movie success
> Superman Movies,
4 of them, ranging from brilliant to godawful
Swamp Thing movies
and TV series,
TV show had a cult following, but otherwise...
Super Friends
> cartoons, Batman cartoons, Superman cartoons, and all kinds of other
> stuff. They didn't branch out too far from the core characters, though.
Think about what you just wrote: most of what you cite revolves, in
one fashion or another around
TWO characters, Supes and Bats. Now obviously they're two of the most
famous fictional characters in the history of anything. Also there's
very little output from that list that's come out in the last 10
years. (Aside from the exemplary 'toons) But considering how many
characters, heroes and groups DC has, it's almost embarassing that
they haven't done more with them.
Take the Justice League: There should have been a movie way, way, by
now, wouldn't you agree?
> Marvel had a flop Punisher movie, an direct-to-home-video Captain America
> movie, an unreleasable Fantastic Four movie, and Spider-Man and his
> amazing friends cartoon, with a couple of bad TV movies, like Spider-Man,
> Captain America, and Nick Fury. Their lone success was The Incredible
> Hulk TV series, which gave us a few good TV movies after the series run,
> which featured Daredevil and Thor. To be honset, they are still hit and
> miss, even now. Spider-Man 3 sucked, both of the Fantastic Four movies
> were iffy, X-Men 3 was only so-so, one decent Punisher movie followed by
> a pretty bad one, a really cheesy Ghost Rider flick, a downright horrible
> Daredevil and its horrible sidekick Electra, and a hard-to-watch Hulk
> movie...it wasn't until Spider-Man 2 that they started getting their act
> together, X Men 2 was awesome, a really good Hulk reboot, and an
> excellant Iron Man really pulled things together. Marvel doing their own
> movies was a step in the right direction.
> Still, for all their successes The Dark Knight kicked all of their asses.
I'll leave the qualitative discussions for another thread. Look at the
economics. Book Marvel's last 10 years against DC's last 10 years (at
the box office) and it's not even a contest. And make no mistake about
it, in terms of $$$ , prime-time or syndication TV or the box office
is what counts in the entertainment industry. Minus Batman from the
equation what the hell has DC really done in the last twenty years in
those arenas?
> Superman Returns sucked, though.
>
> > Marvel, which has scored on the big screen with such A-list characters
> > as Spider-Man and lesser- known ones such as Iron Man and X-Men.
>
> I take it that the writer of this is just talking out of his ass. Lesser
> known to whom by whom? I guess he may be comparing them to Spider-Man,
> but that doesn't mean they are "lesser known" exactly.
C'mon brah. Let's be honest. A hit comic sells like, what, 100,000
copies? The only comic-book heroes who were well-known to the mass
public prior to 1999 were: Supes, Bats, WW, Aquaman, Spider-Man and
the Hulk.
The vast majority of people who went to see Iron Man, Blade, The X-Men
and The Fantastic Four were seeing those characters for the very first
time. They didn't respond to them as comic book characters, they
responded to them as film characters like the Terminator or the
Predator.
Even now, comic sales are still essentially flat even when a character
has a hot movie out. Wolverine and Iron Man's books are still so-so.
> > Levitz is moving to a consulting role.
>
> In other words, he's getting canned.
Sh'yeah.
> > But the move is not without risk. Comic-book fans are sure to be wary
> > of a corporate executive taking control of their beloved characters
> > and will be watching closely to see whom Nelson selects to replace
> > Levitz and run DC's publishing arm.
>
> Meh. How bad can they do?
Exactly.
Back to one of my points, since this is movies we're talking about,
not comics, they need to make REAL MOVIES. I'm totally over "Oh, they
didn't get this or that detail right" Fuck it. The masses don't care.
Just make good movies using an appreciable interpretation of the
character. Keep the damn action going. Superman Returns, Catwoman,
Fantastic Four 2 and Spider-Man 3 should be prime examples of how NOT
to make a movie.
Jason "Swamp Thing..now that takes me back. Dick Durock was THE
man..." Todd
Syvyn11
"Jason Todd" <janklo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8a022d26-2379-467d...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Wished more comic people were in the DCE leadership.
And if it means Dan DiDio gets his 'future endavors', all the better.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Jason Todd <janklo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Warner shakes up DC Comics to compete with Marvel
>
>http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-warner10-2009sep10,0,1779787.story
>
>Warner Bros. hopes to cure a case of superhero envy.
>
>After years of lagging rival Marvel Entertainment in adapting comic-
>book properties for the big screen and other media, the Burbank studio
>unveiled a major restructuring of its DC Comics unit Wednesday that
>will bring its operations under tighter control.
>
>The move is an effort by Warner Bros. and corporate parent Time Warner
>Inc. to implement a new strategy for DC Comics, which will face
>stiffer competition from a steroid-charged Marvel as a result of Walt
>Disney Co.'s deal last week to acquire it for $4 billion.
>
But it's not just the DC unit that needs help. Consider that the
characters *most* associated with the "Warner" name, The Looney
Tunes crew, are being ill-served under the current system as well.
Comic book characters are read by thousands, these characters were
seen by millions.. The same goes for the Hanna Barbera characters.
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Gr�e
5697ca...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> Exactly.
>
> Back to one of my points, since this is movies we're talking about,
> not comics, they need to make REAL MOVIES. I'm totally over "Oh, they
> didn't get this or that detail right" Fuck it. The masses don't care.
> Just make good movies using an appreciable interpretation of the
> character. Keep the damn action going. Superman Returns, Catwoman,
> Fantastic Four 2 and Spider-Man 3 should be prime examples of how NOT
> to make a movie.
You know, that's actually the truth. Batman 89 was a huge sucess, despite
having his costume be all black, the Joker being the killer of his parents,
the Joker being a gangster before his accidental transformation, and a lot
of other stuff, but it was a good movie. Although I like the movie a lot,
Watchmen kinda proved that sticking too close to the source material will
make a movie that only the fans of the source material will appreciate.
Gr�e
5697ca...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> 2 seasons in the 60s, and they STILL can't get it out on DVD
Too many people want a piece of the pie. The show ran on ABC and was
produced by Fox, based on characers from DC comics, a Time-Warner company.
Add in all of the dead celebrities whose heirs and estates would want
royalties from sales of the series on DVD, and I'm pretty sure we'll never
see it released on DVD in our lifetime.
Tim Turnip
<janklo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Take the Justice League: There should have been a movie way, way, by
>now, wouldn't you agree?
I would not, actually. I don't feel that either a Justice League or
Avengers movie will really work. Mark my words (or not).
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
I remember watching one episode and there was a cameo of a guy in a bar
whom I'm pretty sure was Paul Lynde, but he wasn't in the credits -- that
kind of stuff would be a nightmare to sort out..
YKW (ad hoc)
ABC doesn't have a say; their interests in the show terminated when they
canceled it. And, unless they somehow managed to appear without getting
an AFTRA card, no one who acted on the show has any say in how the shows
are distributed, let alone the ability to make any distribution-crippling
demands; that stuff is all in the union contract (save to the extent that
an actor also has a production credit, 'course).
Fox is the sole hold-up in the matter -- unsurprisingly, since, y'know,
it made the series =and= had to pay Kinney/NPP a license fee to do so.
Soon as someone at TW figures out that the '66 property was not somehow
underhandedly stolen by Fox and treats the studio like the (more than)
full partner it was and is, we'll see that release.
--
------------------- ------------------------------------------------
|| E-mail: ykw2006 ||"The mystery of government is not how Washington||
|| -at-gmail-dot-com ||works but how to make it stop." -- P.J. O'Rourke||
|| ----------- || ------------------------------------ ||
||Replace "-at-" with|| Keeping Usenet Trouble-Free ||
|| "@" to respond. || Since 1998 ||
------------------- ------------------------------------------------
"It's not that I want to punish your success. [...]I think
when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
-- The One, 14 Oct 08
YKW (ad hoc)
@mid.individual.net:
> But it's not just the DC unit that needs help. Consider that the
> characters *most* associated with the "Warner" name, The Looney
> Tunes crew, are being ill-served under the current system as well.
> Comic book characters are read by thousands, these characters were
> seen by millions.. The same goes for the Hanna Barbera characters.
How are they ill-served? They are the focus of two cable channels (one in
about half of all homes, the other on nearly every cable, satellite and
IPTV provider in the country). They are currently the subjects of
exhaustive DVD release plans (both projected and realized). They have
been licensed for an enormous range of toys, games, clothing and
household products. Wrt the Looney Tunes characters, some truly horrible
big-budget films have been built around them in the last decade or so.
The LT&MM and HB properties are being managed just fine.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
YKW (ad hoc) <FluffyM...@foxnews.com> wrote:
>t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote in news:7gt835F2pbjg6U1
>@mid.individual.net:
>
>> But it's not just the DC unit that needs help. Consider that the
>> characters *most* associated with the "Warner" name, The Looney
>> Tunes crew, are being ill-served under the current system as well.
>> Comic book characters are read by thousands, these characters were
>> seen by millions.. The same goes for the Hanna Barbera characters.
>
>How are they ill-served? They are the focus of two cable channels (one in
>about half of all homes, the other on nearly every cable, satellite and
>IPTV provider in the country). They are currently the subjects of
>exhaustive DVD release plans (both projected and realized). They have
>been licensed for an enormous range of toys, games, clothing and
>household products. Wrt the Looney Tunes characters, some truly horrible
>big-budget films have been built around them in the last decade or so.
>
>The LT&MM and HB properties are being managed just fine.
I assume you mean Cartoon Network and Boomerang? The first has been
dropping classic cartoons for years and I've never known anyone who actually
has the second. Scooby Doo has been fairly well (if IMHO undeservedly)
served, the rest not so much.
And truly horible movies are not good management..
grinningdemon
They could only work if they slowly build up to it the way Marvel is
currently approaching an Avengers movie by laying the groundwork in
Iron Man, Hulk, etc.
The problem with these teams is the characters are all too different
with very different origins...it's not like the X-Men where you can
just explain the mutant idea and be done with it...it's too much to
service in a single movie and do justice to it.
And, even with the simplified mutant concept, the X-Men movies were
still all about a single character anyway (care to guess which
one?)...we've yet to see an actual X-Men team movie...and I would HATE
to see a JLA movie that was all about Superman and/or Batman...or an
Avengers movie that was all about Captain America.
Jason Todd
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:30:19 -0700 (PDT), Jason Todd
>
> >Take the Justice League: There should have been a movie way, way, by
> >now, wouldn't you agree?
>
> I would not, actually. I don't feel that either a Justice League or
> Avengers movie will really work. Mark my words (or not).
A JLA movie would. Remember, "Super Friends" (gag at that name!) was
known by millions. Everybody knows the core characters -- Superman,
Batman, Wonder Woman and Aquaman*. You'd have to introduce other
characters piece by piece in movies or TV (as grinningdemon mentions
they're doing with Avengers) -- Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter,
Hawkman, Flash, Arrow, Canary, Zatanna. But it could be done. If I was
in charge, secondary characters would be introduced in primary
characters' fims. Aka, GL meets Martian Manhunter in space, Batman
teams up with Arrow and Canary, Supes with Flash, WW with Zatanna. And
then, you have a film bringing them all together.
Jason "JLA Antarctica - now THERE'S a tough sell!"Todd
*I'm torn over inclusion of Aquaman in any JLA film. On the one hand,
dude is well-known, but he's a joke to the general populace. (see:
Entourage, Family Guy). On the other hand though, if he's presented
in badass mode like in Alex Ross' Justice, and the cornier aspects of
his powers are played down (the whole commands-all-sea-creatures-
thing) than you've got something to work with. Personally, I'd rather
they keep orange-shirt, short-hair Aquaman, but truth be told, long-
haired, bearded, and spear-hand Aquaman would probably work better on
film.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ifqnAAAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Russ+Manning%22&lr=&as_brr=0&rview=1&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=2
> Warner shakes up DC Comics to compete with Marvel
>
http://books.google.com/books?id=ifqnAAAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Russ+Manning%22&lr=&as_brr=0&rview=1&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=2
http://books.google.com/books?id=ifqnAAAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Russ+Manning%22&lr=&as_brr=0&rview=1&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=2
http://books.google.com/books?id=ifqnAAAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Russ+Manning%22&lr=&as_brr=0&rview=1&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=2
> In article <Xns9C82B7EE6D2111a9y8a0b1r9i6...@69.16.185.247>,
http://books.google.com/books?id=ifqnAAAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Russ+Manning%22&lr=&as_brr=0&rview=1&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=2
> Jason Todd <janklowic...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:b84f1205-05e0-4cbe-ad80-
> 5697ca6a7...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ifqnAAAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Russ+Manning%22&lr=&as_brr=0&rview=1&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=2
> Jason Todd <janklowic...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:b84f1205-05e0-4cbe-ad80-
> 5697ca6a7...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ifqnAAAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Russ+Manning%22&lr=&as_brr=0&rview=1&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=2
> In article <Xns9C82B3B6F8C2Daa...@69.16.185.250>, Grüe <a...@a.com> wrote:
> >Jason Todd <janklowic...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:b84f1205-05e0-4cbe-ad80-
> >5697ca6a7...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ifqnAAAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Russ+Manning%22&lr=&as_brr=0&rview=1&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=2
> "Grüe" <a...@a.com> wrote innews:Xns9C82B3B...@69.16.185.250:> >news:b84f1205-05e0-4cbe-ad80-
> > 5697ca6a7...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
grinningdemon
I prefer long-haired, spear-handed Aquaman myself...but I don't think
he is as well known as you think he is...the general public may
recognize the name (as they may recognize the name Green Lantern) but
they won't know much about the character beyond that...Superman and
Batman are the only ones that are really well known outside of
comics...while Wonder Woman would be easy for anyone to recognize,
non-comics fans wouldn't know much about her either (the TV show was a
LONG time ago).
Most, if not all, of the characters would need to be introduced in
their own movies first...and these should all be done with a future
JLA movie in mind.
Tim Turnip
<janklo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 10, 7:19�pm, Tim Turnip <timtur...@notarealaddress.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:30:19 -0700 (PDT), Jason Todd
>>
>> <janklowic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Take the Justice League: There should have been a movie way, way, by
>> >now, wouldn't you agree?
>>
>> I would not, actually. �I don't feel that either a Justice League or
>> Avengers movie will really work. �Mark my words (or not).
>
>A JLA movie would. Remember, "Super Friends" (gag at that name!) was
>known by millions.
Name-recognition does not equal quality.
> Everybody knows the core characters -- Superman,
>Batman, Wonder Woman and Aquaman*. You'd have to introduce other
>characters piece by piece in movies or TV (as grinningdemon mentions
>they're doing with Avengers) -- Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter,
>Hawkman, Flash, Arrow, Canary, Zatanna. But it could be done.
I saw his post -- but I don't think it matters whether the
chararacters are brought together gradually in other projects, or if
they all appear in the movie for the first time. I just don't see a
traditional super-hero team working as a modern motion picture. It
worked for the first couple of X-Men movies but that's the X-Men, they
are not a traditional team in the mold of the JLA or Avengers.
And mind you, it may well sell a lot of tickets based on heightened
anticipation -- but I'm arguing whether it would work creatively,
which is a different question.
Maybe someone will come up with a fresh approach that will prove me
wrong. But so far I am skeptical.
John Duncan Yoyo
<tednolan>) wrote:
We get Boomerang on DirectV. It is actually pretty good with no or at
least very limited commercials but they show way more Hanna Barbera
and MGM/Tom & Jerry than Warner Brothers. The Warner Brothers is
seems to be limited to DC Comics based stuff. I can't find classic
Warner Brothers on either CN or BOOM.
The Wacky Races and Perils of Penelope Pitstop are on in the morning
before school. Still amazingly watchable for a 9 year old and
nostalgic corn for me.
-
John Duncan Yoyo
------------------------------o)
Local residents upset with the current weather pattern are encouraged to walk outside
their homes and shake their fists at the sky while exclaiming, "I am displeased!"
Edward McArdle
<Wil...@lions-den.org> wrote:
>On 10-Sep-2009, grinningdemon <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> >I would not, actually. I don't feel that either a Justice League or
>> >Avengers movie will really work. Mark my words (or not).
>>
>> They could only work if they slowly build up to it the way Marvel is
>> currently approaching an Avengers movie by laying the groundwork in
>> Iron Man, Hulk, etc.
>>
>> The problem with these teams is the characters are all too different
>> with very different origins...it's not like the X-Men where you can
>> just explain the mutant idea and be done with it...it's too much to
>> service in a single movie and do justice to it.
>>
>> And, even with the simplified mutant concept, the X-Men movies were
>> still all about a single character anyway (care to guess which
>> one?)...we've yet to see an actual X-Men team movie...and I would HATE
>> to see a JLA movie that was all about Superman and/or Batman...or an
>> Avengers movie that was all about Captain America.
>
>I don't know what this has to do with Pro-Wrestling, but I do agree with the
>rest!
>
>Most of the General Public would be more familiar with names like Superman,
>Batman, Flash than they would of a team called "Justice League of America".
>We seen Superman and Batman in various incarnations such as 1940s movie
>seriels, 1950s TV Series, 1960s TV Series, 1980s films, 1990s films,
>Super-Friends, etc.! Having the characters in individual flicks would be
>more special to get the audience more familiar, then show how they all work
>together!
>
>Most people would be familiar with Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk, etc.
>before they would recognize the team called "The Avengers". I think the way
>that they are doing a solo film of each character prior to the team film is
>the wisest approach.
>
>The Fantastic Four, on the other hand, was created as a family of characters
>from the very beginning! Occasionally The Thing, and the Human Torch will
>have solo stories due to their uniquness!
I disagree. The Avengers has already been a very successful television
show. But I doubt that Patrick McNee is still spry enough to take the lead
role...
--
Edward McArdle
Duggy
> In article <012d8968$0$1755$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>, "Wildcat"
>
>
>
> <Wild...@lions-den.org> wrote:
Reject.
===
= DUG.
===