Why doesnt DC Comics want continuity between movie Franchises??
- Thread starter Joerib
- Start date
It's not that they don't want continuity among their moivies. It's more like they haven't figured out how to do it properly yet.
Maybe they just want to make good movies that turn a profit rather than worry about having some complex inter-franchise continuity.
It's less that they don't want it, more that they can't have it. DC doesn't have much, if any, creative control over the DC characters (primarily Batman and Superman) movies, the various studios and movie makers do.
Much like how Spider-Man and the X-Men aren't in the Avengers movie, they're controlled by other studios other than Marvel's movie arm. So Marvel can do whatever they want with their other properties, including making them a tie-in movie.
DC? Has little to no control over the movies made with their characters. They've sold the rights to it, and Batman and Superman are both controlled by separate businesses so the chances of a tie-in between them is unlikely unless an agreement is reached. (I believe Batman is owned by Warner Brothers, but Superman is only distributed by WB, the movie rights owned by someone else.)
Much like how Spider-Man and the X-Men aren't in the Avengers movie, they're controlled by other studios other than Marvel's movie arm. So Marvel can do whatever they want with their other properties, including making them a tie-in movie.
DC? Has little to no control over the movies made with their characters. They've sold the rights to it, and Batman and Superman are both controlled by separate businesses so the chances of a tie-in between them is unlikely unless an agreement is reached. (I believe Batman is owned by Warner Brothers, but Superman is only distributed by WB, the movie rights owned by someone else.)
See Trekker's response. I didn't realize DC's major properties were all licensed to different studios. That alone puts the kibosh on any hopes of continuity.
Are they not all under WB and Legendary Pictures?
Marvel had a plan. DC Ent just restructured prior to "Green Lantern" releasing. It was thought at the time that if GL was a huge hit that it would be the linchpin for a whole new slate of DC films. Obviously with the lack luster performance and the critical back lash that happened this didn't happen. DC needs a plan that doesn't copy Marvel's template in my opinion.
I wonder how Green Lantern has done with blu-ray/DVD sales?? I like the movie quite a bit!!
WB distributes(d) the Superman movies but doesn't own the movie rights to them, not solely anyway. Batman is similar, although Warner Brothers has more control over Batman than it does Superman.
It's all very.... Business bullshit. In short-order DC doesn't have much if any control over the Batman and Superman movies. Marvel has large control over their characters' movies (other than the X-Men and Spider-man.)
For Superman and Batman to be in a movie together a handful of studios and people would have to get together and pretty much agree to things on money distribution, rights and a lot of other BS. It's not impossible but it'd require a handful of companies to work together.
Marvel controls all of their characters' (again, other than the X-Men and Spider-man) movies pretty much with an iron grip and can do whatever they want with them, hence The Avengers.
DC has very little, if any, control over Batman and Superman's movies. They've sold those rights and would have to buy them back, at a premium.
They do have control over their other characters (Green Lantern, for example) but let's face it. No DC cross-over/JLA movie is going to work without Superman and Batman.
Batman and Superman can appear in a film together. There was a "Batman Vs Superman" film in development prior to "Batman Begins". DC has more say now since DC Ent's inception after the restructuring. That was kind of the point. Geoff Johns is kind of head of their live action development division or whatever it's called. DC and Warner Bros could do the same thing Marvel Studios had without any significant problems, it's just a matter of desire IMO.
Is it? I thought the rights between the two characters was still pretty... murky. That while a cross-over or continuity between the two was possible it'd just require a lot of people to work together in some capacity and this fell apart in the making of the cross-over movie or an agreement couldn't otherwise be reached.
It would be nice, however, to see a JLA movie to be made but for this to happen we'd need the following:
The "Man of Steel" movie would have to work with audiences to get the ball rolling.
A Batman "reboot" would be needed to re-establish the character (since TDKR is the last Nolan Batman movie) in the new JLA 'verse.
At the very least we'd need a Wonder Woman movie to establish her and possibly one or two other DC heroes like Aquaman and The Flash to establish their characters.
Then they'd need to make the JLA movie. Which, hey, I'd love to see but if it's ever to happen it'd be a few years from now. Consider that the Avengers movie pretty much kicked off with Iron Man which came out almost four years ago.
It would be nice, however, to see a JLA movie to be made but for this to happen we'd need the following:
The "Man of Steel" movie would have to work with audiences to get the ball rolling.
A Batman "reboot" would be needed to re-establish the character (since TDKR is the last Nolan Batman movie) in the new JLA 'verse.
At the very least we'd need a Wonder Woman movie to establish her and possibly one or two other DC heroes like Aquaman and The Flash to establish their characters.
Then they'd need to make the JLA movie. Which, hey, I'd love to see but if it's ever to happen it'd be a few years from now. Consider that the Avengers movie pretty much kicked off with Iron Man which came out almost four years ago.
Umm, no... both Man of Steel and the Dark Knight films have Warner Bros, DC Entertainment, Legendary Pictures, and Christopher Nolan's company Syncopy as their production companies. Nolan is the producer of both films.
In fact, you've got it backward. It's Batman whose movie rights are not in Warner Bros.' hands; the rights belong to Benjamin Melniker and Michael Uslan (which is why they've been credited as executive producers on every Batman movie since the '80s, whether live-action or animated, theatrical or direct-to-video). Whereas Warner Bros. has owned the film rights to Superman since purchasing them from the Salkinds in 1993. Many of the rights to the Superman character will revert to the Siegel estate in 2013, but for now the movie rights are with WB.
And every DC-based movie and TV series for the past several decades has been a Warner Bros. production. They consolidated their properties far sooner than Marvel did. But that was a matter of business and finances, a separate sphere from the creative side of things. While Warner Bros. Animation has done a fantastic job developing DC properties over the past 20 years, their live-action counterparts just haven't been as successful at getting their act together. They could have a shared universe among all their films if they wanted to; recall that they almost got a Justice League film off the ground a few years ago, and last year's Green Lantern was meant to be the start of a crossover continuity if it had succeeded (which is why Angela Bassett was included as a version of Amanda Waller -- I gather she was supposed to be the DC films' answer to Nick Fury in the Marvel Cinematic Universe). And since the Nolans are involved with both the Batman and Superman film franchises, they certainly could cross them over if they wanted to. But they don't want to. Christopher Nolan wants his Batman to stay its own separate entity.
Nolan's Batman is not a Batman that exists in the same world as the like of Superman and Green Lantern. That Batman exists in the "real" world. If they wanted to make a shared continuity universe, it would require a Batman reboot.
Also, due to the lackluster reception to Green Lantern (which btw, is almost entirely due to the poor quality of the film, and not the viability of the character) I have to wonder if Warner would distance themselves from that character completely. Who wants a JLA without Green Lantern?
Also, due to the lackluster reception to Green Lantern (which btw, is almost entirely due to the poor quality of the film, and not the viability of the character) I have to wonder if Warner would distance themselves from that character completely. Who wants a JLA without Green Lantern?
^ Which is why they're doing a reboot of the Batman franchise after Nolan's trilogy is finished. I think we need to get rid of these notions of a Justice League film for now. It's simply not going to happen any time soon. They attempted one already and aborted it after casting. For whatever reason DC Ent has a hard time managing their characters and adapting them for live action, film or television.
That does create a problem though. The average movie goer is stupid. Most people didn't even realize that Iron Man, and Thor, and Captain America were happening in the same universe until they saw the Avengers trailer. How hard do you think it would be to make them understand that this new Batman movie takes place in the same universe as Green Lantern, but the other Batman movie that also came out after Green Lantern doesn't?
This is part of the reason why I think they're having such a hard time putting together a shared universe. There are multiple reasons. I just don't think we're going to see this happen any time soon, if at all.
Geoff Johns said as recently as October that there's "still the hope" of doing a GL sequel, although there were earlier reports of WB abandoning those plans. So it seems to be up in the air whether it'll happen.
Anyway, I still say that if Green Lantern had been released 6-8 years earlier, it would've been regarded as a very good superhero film, certainly far superior to contemporaries like X-Men: The Last Stand, Catwoman, The Punisher, Blade: Trinity, Elektra, or Fantastic Four. It's not really a bad movie per se; it's a decent try whose main problem is that it crams in too much stuff and doesn't develop any of it enough as a result. But it had the bad fortune to come along in a summer dominated by three exceptionally good superhero movies, making it pale in comparison.
I'd think the presence of Nick Fury and Agent Coulson in several of them would help get that across.
If they start over with a different origin story, or if The Dark Knight Rises brings Batman's story to a definitive end, I think it should be pretty evident. And even if it isn't, does it matter? If a hypothetical viewer is that oblivious to continuity details, what difference will it make to the story of a JL movie if they believe it features the same Batman who was in the Nolan films?
I mean, heck, some fans thrive on reconciling mutually incompatible continuities. Like the fans who choose to think that the Teen Titans animated series takes place in the same reality as the DC Animated Universe.
From a busniness sense creating a shared movie universe in no way guarantees increased box office, so whats the point. The objective is to put butts in the seats and just having several characters appear together does not mean you will. Really only us few here dream about putting multiple characters together in a film. The average audience will see it or not depending on the hype machine surrounding it. The future of shared movie universes will really depend on the success of the Avengers. If it works and is huge there is no doubt DC/Warner will move in that direction. If its just ok DC/Warner can just move along as they wish.
Similar threads
- Locked
