DC Entertainment Announcents Just Weeks Away

[Dick Whitman]

I have mixed thoughts on Geoff Johns. He started after my prime buying years. So I don't see him as a "Rock Star" like so many current readers do.

Some of his stuff is good and some of it is bad. I have to agree that I don't see much originality to his work. Just bringing back old concepts. He also represents the drawn out, decompressed modern story which has turned me off from comics.

Yet I have enjoyed his screenwriting for both JLU and Smallville. Where writing for a different medium his stuff is much more focused and better paced. I heard the compliant that his comics read like screenplays. But comics have different story needs. So maybe he is perfectly suited to oversee all these adaptations.

I should also add - Geoff is a really nice guy. When he was writing Booster Gold he directly responded to posts of mine on his forum.

 

[The Lensman]

So basically you've drank the "comic shop auteur" kool-aid and become a self-loathing comic fan...got it!

Clueless much? Seriously...self loathing? LOL!
Loathing? Oh, I've got plenty of it....just not for me.

There's a segment of my generation in comics who scream and whine when any big change comes along....who want everything in comics to be what it was in the 70's. See the folks who spent ten years crying and pining over Hal Jordan.

I am not one of them, and I find them pathetic. This mindset is more rampant in my generation when it comes to comics, sci-fi, fantasy, or anything that threatens to upset their precious "childhood". They don't get spared because we're in the same age group.

What a way to write off his opinion. That's right, it's just "kool aid."

And more likely than not, it's the "comic shop auteur" who is desiring of the fanwank...erm, excuse me, continuity....of old.

Comics themselves are becoming more and more isolated..."continuity" driven story telling...bringing back characters that have been dead for 20 years (who were not that interesting to begin with) isn't about expanding an audience (or creating anything new) it's about pleasing a dwindling fan base.

Comics are essentially now just a think tank to create movie pitches.

Thanks and you're right on the money. If these folks had been around in the 50's, the Silver Age never would've lasted. There'd be too many 40 year olds screaming and crying because Jay Garrick wasn't The Flash or Alan Scott, Green Lantern.

I mean, god forbid that the kids today have their own GL or Flash.
It doesn't matter, because in a decade Kyle and Wally will be back as the 90's generation hit's it's nostalgia phase and those guys start taking over as writers and editors. The days when it was unthinkable to replace a character like Hal Jordan are long since over. It doesn't matter how much hype and hooplah was spent bringing them back.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Comic book characters and concepts don't have to be well-known to the general public to be salable as film adaptations given the right casting and cinematic approach. DC has a deep catalog of characters and concepts when you look at their properties across all of their imprints and think of approaches beyond standard superhero films.

Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash, and Justice League are the obvious big blockbuster superhero franchises to aim for, but there's a lot of potential beyond that. Teen Titans, Captain Marvel, Green Arrow, Birds of Prey (done right, which the TV series wasn't), and Plastic Man could all be made into good, successful films. The War that Time Forgot has a great premise for a summer blockbuster. A Metal Men adaptation could make for a great family comedy-adventure, perhaps as a CG animated film. And Vertigo has a huge range of non-superhero properties ripe for adaptation.

Replace all those names with Marvel Universe names and the statement reads the same. A bunch of wishful thinking that has virtually NO chance of happening.

What a way to write off his opinion. That's right, it's just "kool aid."

If the flavored beverage fits...

And more likely than not, it's the "comic shop auteur" who is desiring of the fanwank...erm, excuse me, continuity....of old.

No, the auteurs brought deconstructionism, "pacing for the trade", the Millar/Bendis "heroes are NOT heroes" agenda, and the idea that Marvel's history starts in the year 2000.

They also brought us unadulterated crap like Scott/Emma, Disassembled, Decimation, and so forth. Anything for a critical "buzz", even if it leaves an ever increasing number of fans with the taste of sh*t sandwich in their mouths.

Comics themselves are becoming more and more isolated..."continuity" driven story telling...bringing back characters that have been dead for 20 years (who were not that interesting to begin with) isn't about expanding an audience (or creating anything new) it's about pleasing a dwindling fan base.

No, they've turned into dreary, dystopian nightmares (at least at Marvel) who have been lobotomized into forgetting their once glorious heritage as an entertainment medium

Comics are essentially now just a think tank to create movie pitches.

And THAT is the source of all the rot. The PTB don't care about comic viability in and of itself, so they let asses like Joey Q, Bendis, and Millar pimp out their valuable intellectual properties, driving away the very fans they need to "seed corn" film audiences.

There's more to DC than superheroes. A few movies have been "stealth" comics projects.

A VERY few, and hardly anyone would make the connection. Furthermore, there is the issue of whether or not they would do well.

Do you honestly expect DC's "lustre" as a catalogue of properties to be enhanced by a Kamandi or GI Combat project?

As the man on the street about DC and you'll get the same profile of answers as if you'd asked about Marvel: the "big guns" (Supes, Bats, etc) and MAYBE a select few of the 2nd tier (Guy Gardner, Nightwing, et al).

Guy Gardener??? Seriously?

His name stands a fair sight better chance of being mentioned as a DC property than, say, Bumblebee or Flamebird (of the Titans)

The idea is to make successful films or TV shows. Thats what DC Entertainment and its corporate master Warner Bros want.

Agreed

The Haunted Tank ( the main feature of GI Combat) is an interesting concept that combines a war film with the supernatural. So yeah in the right hands that could be a pretty good film. Kamandi. Maybe an animated series on the Cartoon Network. I happen to like Kamandi.

But pitch either of those to a studio exec and he'll look at you like you just grew another head. Merely being part of a comic company "stable" doesn't guarantee that the studio will "get" the concept or back it.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Replace all those names with Marvel Universe names and the statement reads the same. A bunch of wishful thinking that has virtually NO chance of happening.

I was speaking more to the notion of only a handful of characters and concepts being bankable, something I disagree with. The extent to which DC Entertainment mines DC properties for adaptations remains to be seen. But even if they manage to move forward and get "only" the half-dozen most famous DC superheroes into their own films that would leave most DC fans tickled pink.

But pitch either of those to a studio exec and he'll look at you like you just grew another head. Merely being part of a comic company "stable" doesn't guarantee that the studio will "get" the concept or back it.

DC projects that studio execs at Warners have put into development as feature films in the last decade or so include Deadman, Zatanna, the Wonder Twins, Shazam, the Metal Men, Sgt. Rock, Swamp Thing, the Doom Patrol, Teen Titans, Green Arrow, Adam Strange, House of Secrets, Lobo, Suicide Squad, and Ronin, so the idea that esoteric concepts are going to get an immediate shake of the head from a studio exec is erroneous. Now, most of these projects have been mired in development hell, and that's what DCE is looking to change, and the development pipeline has shown signs of running more smoothly - even before DCE's impact has been felt - with The Losers, Jonah Hex, and Red lined up for release this year and Green Lantern due to start filming next month.

 

[Nerys Myk]

His name stands a fair sight better chance of being mentioned as a DC property than, say, Bumblebee or Flamebird (of the Titans)

.

On a scale of One to Ten. Ten being Superman and One being Bumblebee I'd place "Guy Gardner" at a one with "The Man On the Street". The name is probably meaningless to most folks. At least with Bumblebee you have a frame of reference that doesnt require mentioning Green Lantern.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Name recognition to the general public isn't a defining factor in whether comic book characters make it onto the screen or not. Blade got a film before Spider-Man or the X-Men. Jonah Hex is getting a film before Wonder Woman or the Flash.

Still, I don't think Guy Gardner will ever be a lead character on screen. He may well turn up as a supporting character, though.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Name recognition to the general public isn't a defining factor in whether comic book characters make it onto the screen or not. Blade got a film before Spider-Man or the X-Men. Jonah Hex is getting a film before Wonder Woman or the Flash.

Still, I don't think Guy Gardner will ever be a lead character on screen. He may well turn up as a supporting character, though.

Very true.

 

[Bad Bishop]

Latest article from the New York Times (though mostly stuff that we knew already)

Over the past two years, Warner Brothers Pictures has employed DC writers like Mr. Johns, Grant Morrison and Marv Wolfman as consultants on movie projects. For “Green Lantern,” a 2011 film that will star Ryan Reynolds (of “The Proposal”) and be directed by Martin Campbell (“Casino Royale”), Mr. Johns has given his input on everything from costumes to special effects to fight scenes.

[...]

In the all-important arena of feature films, DC faces strong competition from Marvel, whose motion-picture studio is readying movies based on its well-known heroes Iron Man, Captain America and Thor. In the near term, DC’s movie slate is heavy on adaptations of less familiar series like “Jonah Hex” and “The Losers,” with no new Batman or Superman films in the pipeline. (The DC executives declined to comment on Marvel’s operations, and representatives for Marvel likewise declined to speak about their competitors.)

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I was speaking more to the notion of only a handful of characters and concepts being bankable, something I disagree with. The extent to which DC Entertainment mines DC properties for adaptations remains to be seen. But even if they manage to move forward and get "only" the half-dozen most famous DC superheroes into their own films that would leave most DC fans tickled pink.

Perhaps, but it wouldn't prove that DC has a "deep" pool of bankable properties now would it?

But pitch either of those to a studio exec and he'll look at you like you just grew another head. Merely being part of a comic company "stable" doesn't guarantee that the studio will "get" the concept or back it.

DC projects that studio execs at Warners have put into development as feature films in the last decade or so include Deadman, Zatanna, the Wonder Twins, Shazam, the Metal Men, Sgt. Rock, Swamp Thing, the Doom Patrol, Teen Titans, Green Arrow, Adam Strange, House of Secrets, Lobo, Suicide Squad, and Ronin, so the idea that esoteric concepts are going to get an immediate shake of the head from a studio exec is erroneous. Now, most of these projects have been mired in development hell, and that's what DCE is looking to change, and the development pipeline has shown signs of running more smoothly - even before DCE's impact has been felt - with The Losers, Jonah Hex, and Red lined up for release this year and Green Lantern due to start filming next month.

No one believed in them enough to break them out of DH. I can write two words of a script and call it "in development". Doesn't mean I should be taken seriously.

And most, if not all of those you mentioned, if actually released, are gonna be HUGE dissapointments for WB.

His name stands a fair sight better chance of being mentioned as a DC property than, say, Bumblebee or Flamebird (of the Titans)

.

On a scale of One to Ten. Ten being Superman and One being Bumblebee I'd place "Guy Gardner" at a one with "The Man On the Street". The name is probably meaningless to most folks. At least with Bumblebee you have a frame of reference that doesnt require mentioning Green Lantern.

You're missing (or ignoring) the point, though your response ironically only proves what I'm saying: that DC's "catalogue" of characters has no more bankable properties than any of it's counterparts. Guy is a MAJOR name in DC, and if you are correct, Joe and Jane Sixpack are gonna go "Who?" if you try to make a movie about him, same as 99.999% of the rest of the "stable".

Name recognition to the general public isn't a defining factor in whether comic book characters make it onto the screen or not. Blade got a film before Spider-Man or the X-Men. Jonah Hex is getting a film before Wonder Woman or the Flash.

Still, I don't think Guy Gardner will ever be a lead character on screen. He may well turn up as a supporting character, though.

Very true.

Blade proves nothing; it is useless as a counter example. Vampires and vampire hunters are well established bankable properties. Blade could have been named "Jeb", and it would have played just the same.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Perhaps, but it wouldn't prove that DC has a "deep" pool of bankable properties now would it?

There is no way to prove that an as yet untested property is bankable. You either have the ability to see the potential in properties in terms of how they could be adapted into salable films and/or TV shows if done properly or you don't.

No one believed in them enough to break them out of DH. I can write two words of a script and call it "in development". Doesn't mean I should be taken seriously.

I thought that would be your response, and it's entirely erroneous. A lot of films that end up being made first go through very long development cycles. That includes V for Vendetta, Watchmen, Jonah Hex, and Green Lantern. As those projects languished in development hell I saw no shortage of comments just like yours from online punters saying they'd never make it to the screen because "no one believed in them enough to break out of DH". Well, eventually they did break out of development hell.

And the films I mentioned didn't just have "two words" of a script written. Development money was devoted to them to hire screenwriters to write drafts of scripts, often multiple drafts by multiple screenwriters over time, to try to come up with an approach the studio wanted to move forward with. In other words the typical development process. You may not want to take that seriously, but there are studio execs and producers who do.

And most, if not all of those you mentioned, if actually released, are gonna be HUGE dissapointments for WB.

And what are the next lottery numbers going to be?

Blade proves nothing; it is useless as a counter example. Vampires and vampire hunters are well established bankable properties. Blade could have been named "Jeb", and it would have played just the same.

Which proves that pre-established name recognition isn't important if you have a salable concept.

 

[wew]

Well the Suicide Squad could be pitched in a variety of ways: A superhero version of the Dirty Dozen; or a situation a la "Oceans 11" with death a more prevalent option.

 

[Greg Cox]

Name recognition to the general public isn't a defining factor in whether comic book characters make it onto the screen or not. Blade got a film before Spider-Man or the X-Men. Jonah Hex is getting a film before Wonder Woman or the Flash.
.

Agreed. Name recognition is not all that matters. Look at BLADE, THE MASK, MEN IN BLACK, GHOST RIDER, DAREDEVIL, and HELLBOY. Heck, IRON MAN was only a big deal to comic book fans prior to the hit movie. Certainly, he wasn't a household name outside fan circles.

If the movie is good, and is publicized well, it doesn't matter if the general public ever knows there was a comic book first. BLADE worked because it was a good basis for an exciting vampire movie.

THE METAL MEN or DOOM PATROL or HAUNTED TANK or whatever could work because they'd make fun movies. Whether anyone has ever heard of the comic book is a minor matter.

Heck, if a GHOST RIDER movie can make money, why not KAMANDI?

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Well the Suicide Squad could be pitched in a variety of ways: A superhero version of the Dirty Dozen; or a situation a la "Oceans 11" with death a more prevalent option.

To put it into Hollywood pitching parlance, The Dirty Dozen with supervillains is indeed the approach they're taking.

If the movie is good, and is publicized well, it doesn't matter if the general public ever knows there was a comic book first. BLADE worked because it was a good basis for an exciting vampire movie.

THE METAL MEN or DOOM PATROL or HAUNTED TANK or whatever could work because they'd make fun movies. Whether anyone has ever heard of the comic book is a minor matter.

Exactly. I agree entirely.

 

[JacksonArcher]

I would love for DC Entertainment to tackle The Spectre at one point.

 

[Nerys Myk]

You're missing (or ignoring) the point, though your response ironically only proves what I'm saying: that DC's "catalogue" of characters has no more bankable properties than any of it's counterparts. Guy is a MAJOR name in DC, and if you are correct, Joe and Jane Sixpack are gonna go "Who?" if you try to make a movie about him, same as 99.999% of the rest of the "stable".

First I was commenting on your notion that the man on the street would even know who Guy Gardner was. Pitching a movie about a girl with bumblebee powers would probably be a lot quicker, simpler and understandable to the man of the street,than pitching a movie about Guy Gardner. (Which requires much more backstory to make sense).

Second DC has a host of potentially bankable characters/concepts. That the man on the street is unaware of them is only a slight disadvantage to their bankability. Many won't even be promoted to the man on the street as a comic book adaptation.

 

[Greg Cox]

That the man on the street is unaware of them is only a slight disadvantage to their bankability. Many won't even be promoted to the man on the street as a comic book adaptation.

Exactly. The movie-going public didn't know or care that BLADE or MEN IN BLACK or V FOR VENDETTA were based on comic books. And why should they?

Heck, my niece has watched SMALLVILLE religiously for its entire run and has never touched a comic book in her life. And she enjoys the show thoroughly without getting any of the DC Comics references.

Me: "Ohmigod! It's Brainiac!"
Her: "Brainy-what?"

 

[S. Gomez]

I would love for DC Entertainment to tackle The Spectre at one point.

I second the motion.

 

[Bad Bishop]

I would love for DC Entertainment to tackle The Spectre at one point.

That would be great. It's been many years since the Spectre's first unofficial appearance in The Ten Commandments (1956). In the film he was the Angel of Death, appearing as a green mist that kills the firstborn in every house in Egypt. This idea comes from the 1990's title The Spectre by writer John Ostrander.

But Spectre might need a costume makeover. The little Robin-style shoes and shorts could be a problem.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

But Spectre might need a costume makeover. The little Robin-style shoes and shorts could be a problem.

Yeah, they definitely wouldn't work in a live action production. Green robes with a hood, with his face and hands being the only part of his body you see would probably be the best way to go.

 

[Nerys Myk]

That the man on the street is unaware of them is only a slight disadvantage to their bankability. Many won't even be promoted to the man on the street as a comic book adaptation.

Exactly. The movie-going public didn't know or care that BLADE or MEN IN BLACK or V FOR VENDETTA were based on comic books. And why should they?

Heck, my niece has watched SMALLVILLE religiously for its entire run and has never touched a comic book in her life. And she enjoys the show thoroughly without getting any of the DC Comics references.

Me: "Ohmigod! It's Brainiac!"
Her: "Brainy-what?"

I've met people who grew up watching Teen Age Mutant Ninja Turtles who had no idea it started as a comic book.