DC announces mass cancellation of animated projects

[Christopher]

The problem, of course, is that Superman and Batman have trained people to spell supehero names DC-style, not Marvel-style!

You mean like Wonderwoman?

Of course, Batman started out as The Bat-Man, but it got simplified pretty quickly. I guess Spidey was more of a stickler for spelling.

 

[Greg Cox]

The problem, of course, is that Superman and Batman have trained people to spell supehero names DC-style, not Marvel-style!

You mean like Wonderwoman?

Of course, Batman started out as The Bat-Man, but it got simplified pretty quickly. I guess Spidey was more of a stickler for spelling.

True, there are exceptions like Wonder Woman, but, in general, Stan Lee seems to have liked breaking his character names apart more than the DC did.

Spider-Man. Iron Man. Ant-Man. Invisible Girl. Etc.

Then again, let's see how many people spell Green Lantern "Greenlantern" . . .

 

[Nowhere Man]

The ultimate result of this is that future DC animated movies will be either starring Superman, Batman, or the JLA (which has Superman and Batman).

Yup.

I think DC is still hanging some hopes that the Green Lantern movie may bump him up in the same league as Supes and Bats, but as far as anyone else--forget it.

If there is GL, Batman 3, a new Superman and JLA, dosen't that mean there should be a Flash, WW and maybe Martian Manhunter Movie? Or could it be they will be introduced in the JLA movie and not get a movie of thier own?

 

[CaptainCanada]

The ultimate result of this is that future DC animated movies will be either starring Superman, Batman, or the JLA (which has Superman and Batman).

Yup.

I think DC is still hanging some hopes that the Green Lantern movie may bump him up in the same league as Supes and Bats, but as far as anyone else--forget it.

If there is GL, Batman 3, a new Superman and JLA, dosen't that mean there should be a Flash, WW and maybe Martian Manhunter Movie? Or could it be they will be introduced in the JLA movie and not get a movie of thier own?

Nolan's Batman and Superman movies aren't leading to a JLA movie, going by everything he's said in the past; Bale has also repeatedly said he has no interest in that.

 

[Kibbin]

Yeah I think the plan with DC is to skip the build uyp and just go straight to a JL movie, how well that would work I don't know, but considering its been on the burner I don't know if it ever will.

 

[Shazam!]

There MAY still be hope for a new Batman Beyond feature, but that is a long time off if ever.

I like how the one that may survive is the shittest of the bunch.

 

[Snaploud]

There MAY still be hope for a new Batman Beyond feature, but that is a long time off if ever.

I like how the one that may survive is the shittest of the bunch.

Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker was better than any of the other DC animated flicks previously released.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I had no idea there had even been mention of another Batman Beyond project other than the comic that is coming this month which I'm very much looking forward to. Hopefully this still happens!

 

[RandyS]

That's too bad about the Batgirl: Year One as I really liked that comic miniseries.

I haven't read the comic yet, but was looking forward to that movie.

Too bad.

 

[23skidoo]

Good god, DC just can't seem to keep anything together. While Marvel is burning up the theaters with stuff like Iron Man and Thor, DC can't even get a Superman movie out of the starting gate. And now the only area where they WERE excelling vs. Marvel, the direct-to-DVD/BD animated arena, seems dead in the water.

The frustrating part is I generally can't stand the (current) Marvel comics universe, while I eat up DC's stuff almost exclusively (not planned - just worked out that way; I haven't found a Marvel comic that appeals to me in about 5 years), so I'd love to see me animateds. I the WW film was great, and I was hoping for a sequel to that particular reinvention -- which granted was more Alias than Bill Moulston, but still...

I guess we shouldn't be surprised that DC's decided to go (maybe) with a revival of one of its TV series (Batman Beyond). I guess a Teen Titans Go movie is probably around the corner too.

(Still, by that logic there's also a chance for a JLU revival... that would be cool.)

EDIT: spotted this exchange I want to reply to:

Im sad that female superheros are somehow unpopular when it comes to movies and Tv-shows these days.

We don't actually know for a fact that female superheroes are unpopular. It's just that whenever one movie about a female hero underperforms, the executives jump to the conclusion that it failed because it had a female hero, rather than because of some other factor. I gather a similar thing is happening in comics lately.

I normally don't pull the "sexism card" but the attitude shown by DC in this context, which I agree we've seen a lot of lately elsewhere, quacks like a duck so it's a duck as far as I'm concerned.

I remember when the second Lara Croft movie (which I personally considered superior to the first) underperformed (i.e. it didn't bomb, it just didn't make sufficient millions for satisfy the suits), for some reason that made another studio decide to cancel the Halle Berry James Bond spin-off movie, Jinx. Granted I hated the character in Die Another Day, and Berry legitimately stunk up the litter box with her later Catwoman, but just because movie A bombed, that doesn't mean movie B will bomb.

Consider similar logic, if Fringe, which features a female lead hero, had been cancelled or abandoned on the basis of the Bionic Woman remake flopping. It didn't happen, but it could have. On the other hand, when Carla Gugino's critically acclaimed Karen Sisco series died a quick death because of zero promotion by the network, there were probably a few female private-eye shows that bit the dust as a result.

The irony in all this, going back to DC specifically, is their current titles feature some of the strongest female leads I've ever seen in comics. Aside from WW they've done some great things with Power Girl, Lois Lane of course is always strong, the Gotham Sirens series, Birds of Prey is about to come back, Checkmate - though now ended - was loaded with strong female characters, good and bad. Yet the company takes this backwards approach when it comes to making movies.

If they want to sell millions of copies to fanboys, the solution is simple: Power Girl. And do her up to the nines like they did with WW. Every adolescent male -- and lonely 41-year-old -- with a Visa card would be lining up for the Blu-Ray at Wal-Mart, guaranteed!

Maybe the thing that needs to happen is for Marvel to have a huge hit with something like a Black Widow movie (bet they're setting that up with Scarlet J in Iron Man 2), or She-Hulk (see comment about Power Girl, above), or Spider-Woman or Ms Marvel. All of Marvel's hit movies have been male-centered (X-Men doesn't count because they were team films; ditto Fantastic Four). I think the last solo they attempted with a woman was Jennifer Garner's Elektra which didn't fly. If Marvel can break the perceived x-chromosome losing streak, maybe DC will smarten up.

Alex

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

I really don't understand their logic here: why would you release a DTV without being willing to consider long-term sales results? GL and WW sold at least as much as JL: New Frontier.

Maybe the quality of GL sucked? I mean the movie...was terrible.

No it wasn't, but that's another thread.

Yes. It was terrible. They destroyed the Green Lantern mythos in about 30 minutes.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Maybe the quality of GL sucked? I mean the movie...was terrible.

No it wasn't, but that's another thread.

Yes. It was terrible. They destroyed the Green Lantern mythos in about 30 minutes.

Let's see:

• Abin Sur dies and passes the ring to Hal? Check.
• Grumpy little blue midget Guardians that rub Hal the wrong way? Check.
• Sinestro first as Lantern, then does a "heel turn"? Check.
• Diverse supporting cast of alien Corps members? Check.
• Hal turns out to be a far better Lantern than anybody suspected he would be? Check.

Yep, the mythos is just slaughtered...

The only significant difference is the green/yellow element, and that has no practical effect on the story whatsoever. The Corps and the rings/battery are STILL the creation of the guardians, they just draw power from a slightly different source.

 

[Christopher]

Im sad that female superheros are somehow unpopular when it comes to movies and Tv-shows these days.

We don't actually know for a fact that female superheroes are unpopular. It's just that whenever one movie about a female hero underperforms, the executives jump to the conclusion that it failed because it had a female hero, rather than because of some other factor. I gather a similar thing is happening in comics lately.

I normally don't pull the "sexism card" but the attitude shown by DC in this context, which I agree we've seen a lot of lately elsewhere, quacks like a duck so it's a duck as far as I'm concerned.

I hesitate to assume it's sexism. It very well might be, at least to some extent, but on the other hand, it's just the nature of Hollywood executives to think in terms of broad categories and attribute success or failure to the type of story something is rather than the individual project's quality or originality. So when a given show or movie succeeds, we get a dozen inferior copies of things in the same genre or format. (Hercules and Xena spawned a rash of syndicated fantasy-action shows, Lost and Heroes spawned a rash of SF-ish serials, the X-Men and Spider-Man films made superhero films popular again, etc.) And conversely, when a given show or movie flops big, it destroys the execs' confidence in that whole subgenre and any similar projects suffer for it. So it's not necessarily sexism. There is stereotyping involved, but it's stereotyping by the subject matter or format of the story.

It's easy to attribute executive decisions to things like racism or sexism, and I'm sure it's sometimes true. But executives are in the business of making money, and if they think that appealing to a particular demographic will increase their profits, most executives will do so regardless of their personal feelings toward that demographic. Back in the '60s, when NBC and other networks made a serious push to increase racial diversity in their shows, it wasn't because of idealism or progressivism, but because they'd done studies proving that minorities bought the products advertised in TV commercials and thus helped advertisers and the networks they supported to make more money. Even the executives who wouldn't let their daughters marry black men would still be willing to take those black men's money, so they wouldn't resist efforts to include more black actors on TV. Whatever they feel as individuals, their responsibility as professionals is to increase profits by all available means.

I suspect the same is true with the gender issue in comics and action films. It's not so much that the executives have negative personal feelings toward women as that they believe that women aren't interested in spending money on comic books or action movies, and that the male audience for such things doesn't want to see female-oriented stories. That is a gender stereotype to an extent, but it's got more to do with the execs' assumptions about other people's attitudes than it does with the execs' own attitudes. So "sexism" is perhaps too harsh a term. (After all, the current president of DC Entertainment is herself a woman, Diane Nelson.)

 

[Broccoli]

Maybe the quality of GL sucked? I mean the movie...was terrible.

No it wasn't, but that's another thread.

Yes. It was terrible. They destroyed the Green Lantern mythos in about 30 minutes.

While the movie was not all that good, I wouldn't say it destroyed the mythos.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I hesitate to assume it's sexism. It very well might be, at least to some extent, but on the other hand, it's just the nature of Hollywood executives to think in terms of broad categories and attribute success or failure to the type of story something is rather than the individual project's quality or originality. So when a given show or movie succeeds, we get a dozen inferior copies of things in the same genre or format. (Hercules and Xena spawned a rash of syndicated fantasy-action shows, Lost and Heroes spawned a rash of SF-ish serials, the X-Men and Spider-Man films made superhero films popular again, etc.) And conversely, when a given show or movie flops big, it destroys the execs' confidence in that whole subgenre and any similar projects suffer for it. So it's not necessarily sexism. There is stereotyping involved, but it's stereotyping by the subject matter or format of the story.

WB made it explicitly clear to Bruce: they weren't happy with the PACE of sales. WW did numbers similar to NF eventually, but the studio doesn't want to carry a "losing" (ie not yet profitable) project on book for an extended period of time.

It's easy to attribute executive decisions to things like racism or sexism, and I'm sure it's sometimes true. But executives are in the business of making money, and if they think that appealing to a particular demographic will increase their profits, most executives will do so regardless of their personal feelings toward that demographic. Back in the '60s, when NBC and other networks made a serious push to increase racial diversity in their shows, it wasn't because of idealism or progressivism, but because they'd done studies proving that minorities bought the products advertised in TV commercials and thus helped advertisers and the networks they supported to make more money. Even the executives who wouldn't let their daughters marry black men would still be willing to take those black men's money, so they wouldn't resist efforts to include more black actors on TV. Whatever they feel as individuals, their responsibility as professionals is to increase profits by all available means.
I suspect the same is true with the gender issue in comics and action films. It's not so much that the executives have negative personal feelings toward women as that they believe that women aren't interested in spending money on comic books or action movies,

Which the evidence supports. Action movies are what women put up with in return for men putting up with "chick flicks".

and that the male audience for such things doesn't want to see female-oriented stories.

In regars to comics, the male audience is split. The younger audience likely doesn't. They can get their T&A off the internet. They get their knock-down/drag-outs from comics, and women characters have a hard time fitting into that.

The older audience, aside from learning to "appreciate the paint" starts caring more about character and story development, and that is where female characters find a home in their collections IF the material is well done.

The downside of that is that the older audience is shrinking by the year, as the comics companies make it harder and harder to keep a steady stream of readers going.

That is a gender stereotype to an extent, but it's got more to do with the execs' assumptions about other people's attitudes than it does with the execs' own attitudes.

It's not what they "assume", it's what the market shows.

 

[SiorX]

We don't actually know for a fact that female superheroes are unpopular. It's just that whenever one movie about a female hero underperforms, the executives jump to the conclusion that it failed because it had a female hero, rather than because of some other factor. I gather a similar thing is happening in comics lately.

I normally don't pull the "sexism card" but the attitude shown by DC in this context, which I agree we've seen a lot of lately elsewhere, quacks like a duck so it's a duck as far as I'm concerned.

I hesitate to assume it's sexism. It very well might be, at least to some extent, but on the other hand, it's just the nature of Hollywood executives to think in terms of broad categories and attribute success or failure to the type of story something is rather than the individual project's quality or originality. So when a given show or movie succeeds, we get a dozen inferior copies of things in the same genre or format. (Hercules and Xena spawned a rash of syndicated fantasy-action shows, Lost and Heroes spawned a rash of SF-ish serials, the X-Men and Spider-Man films made superhero films popular again, etc.) And conversely, when a given show or movie flops big, it destroys the execs' confidence in that whole subgenre and any similar projects suffer for it. So it's not necessarily sexism. There is stereotyping involved, but it's stereotyping by the subject matter or format of the story.

Thinking of stories with a female lead as a subcategory or genre is itself a form of sexism. Bruce Timm's quote is quite unambiguous in stating that the gender of the protagonist was the criterion by which they judged the failure of the WW model:

The execs decided because it wasn’t able to sell quickly right away, where as Justice League was, that there wouldn’t be any more female super hero films right now.

It's inconceivable to think of the same thing happening with male heroes. There're a wealth of diverse female heroes about whom interesting stories could be told in animated or live action films. Batwoman, Peej, Oracle, Sasha Bordeaux, The Question, any of the Batgirls - they'd all make for very different movies, with different genre tropes, salable to different demographics. But the execs instead view it through a lens of tokenism where "the chick" is a separate, homogeneous category unto itself. Unlike male superhero movies which may be subdivided into gritty urban heroes, comic heroes, all American heroes, underdogs etc, every female hero is shoved into one box which fits nobody. How is that anything but sexism?

I suspect the same is true with the gender issue in comics and action films. It's not so much that the executives have negative personal feelings toward women as that they believe that women aren't interested in spending money on comic books or action movies, and that the male audience for such things doesn't want to see female-oriented stories. That is a gender stereotype to an extent, but it's got more to do with the execs' assumptions about other people's attitudes than it does with the execs' own attitudes. So "sexism" is perhaps too harsh a term. (After all, the current president of DC Entertainment is herself a woman, Diane Nelson.)

You can't divorce judgements about market forces from underlying attitudes of the people making those judgements. And a person (women can be A-grade sexists too) can be perfectly respectful and caring towards individual women in their daily lives while still making professional decisions based on sexist assumptions and stereotypes about "what 'women' want". Perhaps I'm just jaded, but I'm skeptical of DC's marketing acumen in assessing women as a market, if only based on how often the big two seem to go out of their way to stop me from giving them money. And I love superheroes.

 

[Shazam!]

There MAY still be hope for a new Batman Beyond feature, but that is a long time off if ever.

I like how the one that may survive is the shittest of the bunch.

Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker was better than any of the other DC animated flicks previously released.

But not since.

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

I would take it over Justice League: The New Frontier. I didn't like that one. I'd also say it was better than Superman: Doomsday. I liked it but it was still a little weak.

 

[Christopher]

Thinking of stories with a female lead as a subcategory or genre is itself a form of sexism. Bruce Timm's quote is quite unambiguous in stating that the gender of the protagonist was the criterion by which they judged the failure of the WW model:

The execs decided because it wasn’t able to sell quickly right away, where as Justice League was, that there wouldn’t be any more female super hero films right now.

It's inconceivable to think of the same thing happening with male heroes....


You can't divorce judgements about market forces from underlying attitudes of the people making those judgements. And a person (women can be A-grade sexists too) can be perfectly respectful and caring towards individual women in their daily lives while still making professional decisions based on sexist assumptions and stereotypes about "what 'women' want".

Those are fair points. I guess I was defining "sexism" more narrowly as a conscious or malicious attitude and saying that I didn't think that was necessarily in play here.

Still, perhaps "gendered assumptions" would be a better term. Sure, there's an assumption that action or superhero stories focused on women won't be profitable, but there must be cases where the reverse is true, where the emphasis in a particular genre or medium is primarily on female leads because of the belief that the audience for that particular kind of production wouldn't buy it if the leads were male. For instance, say, the romance comics that were popular in the '50s and '60s. Or magazines like Cosmopolitan, where you never see a man on the cover. These are things targeted at female audiences and the assumption is that they sell better if their focus is on women. So it's gendered, in the sense that it's believed the gender of the featured characters makes a substantial difference and needs to be taken into account; but since it can go either way depending on the category of work being marketed, it's not necessarily the same thing as sexism, i.e. the belief that one sex is inferior to another.

Though I admit, that may be splitting hairs on the definition. Your position seems to be that the term "sexism" can be used to mean gendered stereotypes in general, with or without value judgments about one sex being superior. I'm hesitant to go along with that, since "sexist" strikes me as a culturally and emotionally loaded term that can be inflammatory if used too broadly, but I can't actually refute it. Let's just say I don't disagree with what you're saying, I'm just not sure we agree on semantics.

 

[AviTrek]

This bums me out. I was looking forward to more of these, not less...

No one said the number of movies being produced will decrease. All that Timm said was there will be no WW or GL sequel, no more female movies, and some long suspected DOA movies are DOA.

I would still expect 3-4 movies a year. They will all just focus on Superman, Batman, Justice League, and maybe try a couple other second tier male heroes(Flash).