Warner Bros restructures DC Comics

[JacksonArcher]

The great thing about the Green Lantern mythology is that you can start out with Hal Jordan, maybe focus three movies on him, and then when the actor gets tired of playing the role you merely get a new character (a la John Stewart, Kyle Rayner, Guy Gardner) as the new GL. You could do a lot of films if you followed this approach, verses the same character being played by the same actor with each subsequent film.

 

[Nick Ryder]

I just watched GL:First Flight today (thank ya Netflix!) and really that would be a great way to do it. And given how many GL's there are, even among the Earth GL's, you could easily have as many movies as you want, even with different leads. I can see Hal being GL for at least a couple of movies. Maybe GL1 - will focus on Hal and how he started down the path to being the big mack daddy Green Lantern. Then GL2 will see him firmly established and then maybe introduce Guy Gardner or John Stewart. Then GL3 can see one of the new guys taking over while Hal is busy in space or something. GL4 can be where things can fall apart. the Corps goes through a major crisis, maybe even planets are attacked and we have an abbreviated way of getting Hal into Parallax. The Corps falls at the end of GL4. Then in GL5 you introduce Kyle Rayner as "the last green lantern" or something. Then see him slowly grow into the role and maybe even meet one of the other guys who sort of mentor him. GL6 would be him in full swing, maybe even working with Ganthet on a way to restart the Corps. Then G7 could be the rebirth of the corps and the salvation of Hal. And then GL8 - after all how long CAN this last... would be the final film with the GLC maybe finally esablishing a working peace in the universe.. "for now..."

If they shoot it right, they can whip out 2 movies at a crack. With maybe a year or two in between each film to keep it fresh - or hell, one a year! Then in maybe 8 years we'll have a full story!

 

[darkwing_duck1]

As a rule, I'm wary of corporations "consolidating" things, but this does sound promising in a number of ways. Taking the Wonder Woman movie out of Joel Silver's hands is a plus -- maybe whoever gets it next will have the sense to rehire Joss Whedon and let him do it his way. And it sounds like the people who are going to be in charge of the whole schmeer now are the same people in charge of the DC Universe animated movies, which have worked out well.

I think THIS is the relevent portion of the original article:

Not only was that shocking to the producers, but even more so when they found out this was part of Robinov's strategy to severely limit the number of gross players on the projects. Producers were told that they may get the titles back to develop, but with far less rich deals.

Translation: do it and do it CHEAP...

Does anyone know how or if this affects Public Enemies?

The founding of DC Entertainment is about Warner Bros. taking DC to the next level and giving DC an even greater degree of focus and prioritization in all the businesses in which we operate—films, television, home entertainment, digital, consumer products and videogames.

Not one mention of comics...interesting...

 

[darkwing_duck1]

double post

 

[Bad Bishop]

As a rule, I'm wary of corporations "consolidating" things, but this does sound promising in a number of ways. Taking the Wonder Woman movie out of Joel Silver's hands is a plus -- maybe whoever gets it next will have the sense to rehire Joss Whedon and let him do it his way. And it sounds like the people who are going to be in charge of the whole schmeer now are the same people in charge of the DC Universe animated movies, which have worked out well.

I think THIS is the relevent portion of the original article:

Not only was that shocking to the producers, but even more so when they found out this was part of Robinov's strategy to severely limit the number of gross players on the projects. Producers were told that they may get the titles back to develop, but with far less rich deals.

Translation: do it and do it CHEAP...

Wrong. It means exactly what it says--fewer players getting a percentage of the gross or exhorbitant fees. The business environment has changed. The old cash cows like DVD sales aren't making money like they used to. The studio just wants to improve their bottom line. Nothing wrong with that.

Does anyone know how or if this affects Public Enemies?

It's still being released on schedule this month and it should be another success.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Yeah, it doesn't mean "do it cheap" in terms of smaller budgets. It means limiting the percentage of the gross paid out to producers, directors, and actors so that the studio can recoup its budgets more easily.

 

[Christopher]

^So it's just the opposite of "do it cheap" -- a higher percentage of the budget goes on the screen rather than into various people's pockets.