DC Movies- if at first you don't succeed...

[zslane]

DC didn't have to copy Marvel's approach of giving each signature character his/her own movie before putting them together in the team movie, and I'm not convinced that any of the DCEU movies would have been any better off had they done so. As I see it, the core problem isn't a lack of architectural patience, but that DC is creatively misguided (in terms of tone and characterization), and that infects everything they've done so far. Maybe Wonder Woman will be the turning point, but my sneaking suspicion is that Justice League will return to the same joyless, grimdark mode of storytelling as the other films, and the WW film will be the lone beacon of light in the DCEU.

[bigdamnhero]

Do we know that the Batgirl movie is coming out before the solo Batfleck movie? I'd assume that the Batfleck one is further along, given that they haven't formalized the deal for Batgirl yet.

The Batgirl movie isn't even confirmed, nor have they announced a cast, so I would assume it's planned for after Batfleck Solo.

[zslane]

It sounds like the Batfleck solo film is beset with pre-production problems that threaten to kill it before it even gets started, so who knows...?

[Pattern Ghost]

The Batgirl movie isn't even confirmed, nor have they announced a cast, so I would assume it's planned for after Batfleck Solo.

 

That's what I was assuming, too.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Do we know that the Batgirl movie is coming out before the solo Batfleck movie? I'd assume that the Batfleck one is further along, given that they haven't formalized the deal for Batgirl yet.

Solo Batfleck film has been pushed back due to Affleck dropping out as director while he recovers from alcoholism. The script he and Terrio were working on has been scrapped, a new director has been brought in and they are starting from square one again.

 

I would say at this juncture its a bit premature to be announcing bat spin offs before the parent film is even in production.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gamespot.com/amp-articles/the-batman-finds-a-director-after-ben-affleck-drop/1100-6448163/

 

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.livescience.com/58304-ben-affleck-alcohol-addiction-relapse.html

 

https://www.google.com/amp/fansided.com/2017/03/15/rumor-batman-film-script-scrapped-again/amp/

[NuSoardGraphite]

DC didn't have to copy Marvel's approach of giving each signature character his/her own movie before putting them together in the team movie, and I'm not convinced that any of the DCEU movies would have been any better off had they done so. As I see it, the core problem isn't a lack of architectural patience, but that DC is creatively misguided (in terms of tone and characterization), and that infects everything they've done so far. Maybe Wonder Woman will be the turning point, but my sneaking suspicion is that Justice League will return to the same joyless, grimdark mode of storytelling as the other films, and the WW film will be the lone beacon of light in the DCEU.

I wouldnt call it Marvel's approach. Marvel is doing things in a natural organic way. You introduce the characters. Then you expand the world setting. You establish the rules of the universe first. Then you raise the stakes. Shake things up. Break some established rules and when all seems lost, the heroes make a comeback. Overcome the odds against them.

 

DC has barely established their world setting yet and already they've raised the stakes. The forces of Apokalyps is on their way and we havent been introduced to the Thamyscirans, the Atlanteans, the Speed Force, The Gods, Martians or the spectrum of emotional energy their powers. When the forces of Apokalyps arrive, our heroes are going to have to tap into these resources and audiences dont know what the f*** any of those things are yet.

 

They needed to introduce the greater DC universe before bringing in Darkseid and his baddies. They could have started with the Mother Boxes in the first few films, sure. Those are your McGuffins. Maybe have the scene with Flash trying to contact Bruce. But they should have done the core JLA members solo movies prior to Justice League to introduce audiences to how the DC univers e works before throwing everything and the kitchen sink at audiences.

 

Thats just how I feel about it. DC is just rushing, plain and simple. Yes they have writing issues and characterization issues. Absolutely. And its their haste to get movies out of the door that is the core issue here. They arent taking the time to get these individual movies right on any level. And they wont until they slow down and take stock of what they have and prioritize.

[Hugh Neilson]

I wouldnt call it Marvel's approach. Marvel is doing things in a natural organic way. You introduce the characters. Then you expand the world setting. You establish the rules of the universe first. Then you raise the stakes. Shake things up. Break some established rules and when all seems lost, the heroes make a comeback. Overcome the odds against them.

I think you give Marvel way too much credit. I think they did an Iron Man and a Hulk movie hoping they would sell. Iron Man seemed a lot more like Robocop than a Superhero Story to me. Then someone said "what if we tack on an Iron Man/Hulk end credit scene, just for chuckles". So they did. And they saw that the fans are interested in an Avengers movie.

 

So, what should we do for the Iron Man sequel? Hmmm...why don't we toss in SHIELD and a Black Widow character? WOW - the fans ate that up! Can we bolt something like that on to Thor? hmmm...what if we toss a Hawkeye cameo into the "Thor goes to retrieve his hammer" scene, and make it guarded by SHIELD.

 

Hey, these are REALLY selling - what's the next step? Well, everyone is squawking about Avengers. We'd need Captain America - let's end his movie with an Avengers teaser, and start thinking about that next movie.

 

By that time, we have a franchise going, and the Avengers success pushed us into the next set of characters, so maybe a bit more "what characters can we build for the next one" started, but I also think the success of GoTG was a surprise, so they got more tied in. Meanwhile, we start thinking about retconning these Infinity Stones in, to better tie the movies in, and because wow, did the fans eat up that Thanos cameo we thought would be a cute one-off at the end of Avengers.

 

I don't think that the Marvel Studios have a photo of the wall design tying all these movies together that dates back from the scriptwriting for Hulk and Iron Man.

[NuSoardGraphite]

I think you give Marvel way too much credit. I think they did an Iron Man and a Hulk movie hoping they would sell. Iron Man seemed a lot more like Robocop than a Superhero Story to me. Then someone said "what if we tack on an Iron Man/Hulk end credit scene, just for chuckles". So they did. And they saw that the fans are interested in an Avengers movie.

 

So, what should we do for the Iron Man sequel? Hmmm...why don't we toss in SHIELD and a Black Widow character? WOW - the fans ate that up! Can we bolt something like that on to Thor? hmmm...what if we toss a Hawkeye cameo into the "Thor goes to retrieve his hammer" scene, and make it guarded by SHIELD.

 

Hey, these are REALLY selling - what's the next step? Well, everyone is squawking about Avengers. We'd need Captain America - let's end his movie with an Avengers teaser, and start thinking about that next movie.

 

By that time, we have a franchise going, and the Avengers success pushed us into the next set of characters, so maybe a bit more "what characters can we build for the next one" started, but I also think the success of GoTG was a surprise, so they got more tied in. Meanwhile, we start thinking about retconning these Infinity Stones in, to better tie the movies in, and because wow, did the fans eat up that Thanos cameo we thought would be a cute one-off at the end of Avengers.

 

I don't think that the Marvel Studios have a photo of the wall design tying all these movies together that dates back from the scriptwriting for Hulk and Iron Man.

I think you are right about some of that. Certainly its been something Marvel had been thinking about. But once it was clear it was working its obvious they put together a plan by the time Captain America released. Possibly even Thor. Kevin Feige has said in interviews that the plan they are following was put into place before they even began filming the 1st Avengers film. That he always intended for this to be the result. Even if it was just a fever dream in Feige's head. at least someone at Marvel had an idea of what the hell they were doing and where they wanted to go. DC cant say that yet.

 

They cant get a Flash movie made. Its aleady gone through 3 directors. The script has been scrapped twice. Batfleck is in a similar state. Wonder Woman lost directors too. So far only Auquaman seems to be going smoothly because both Mamoa and director James Wan seem to be super into it.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Well, Iron Man was just a one off hoping it would make money, but once they saw the reaction to the avengers fan service at the end of the film they started going "hmmmm."  They started working on how to do an Avengers film with the runaway, wildly successful Iron Man film, and from that an actual structure was built.

[Pattern Ghost]

I would say at this juncture its a bit premature to be announcing bat spin offs before the parent film is even in production.

 

They haven't announced the spin off. So far, there's an unconfirmed rumor that Whedon is talking with the studio about doing a spinoff. I don't quite see the cause for concern. The Batgirl film isn't anything more than a rumor, which if true, still makes it unlikely to get into production at all, let alone before the Batfleck film gets made.

 

Edit: Which isn't to say that I disagree with your overall point that they should do a bit more setup. That'd certainly be a good thing. I just don't see the Batman/Batgirl order being an issue until we know more about the status of each. If the rumor about Whedon Batgirl talks is true, then maybe they are trying to plan ahead a little.

 

I do think it'd be fine if they made a stand alone Batgirl movie without any more Batman movies. People know who Batman is, so a Batman-inspired heroine should take all of two minutes of setup to explain to people who don't know who Batgirl is. I think Batgirl's pretty well-known by the public at large though. She may not have as much exposure to the general public as Supergirl, but she's already been on screen more, between the Adam West Batman show and the horrible Silverstone version.

[bigdamnhero]

I wouldnt call it Marvel's approach. Marvel is doing things in a natural organic way.

Yes, but given that no one in film had ever done anything like it before, I think it's fair to give Marvel props for it.

 

I think you give Marvel way too much credit.

...

I don't think that the Marvel Studios have a photo of the wall design tying all these movies together that dates back from the scriptwriting for Hulk and Iron Man.

I think you're giving them too little credit IMO. I don't think they had everything plotted out when they made the first Iron Man movie. But having Fury name-drop the Avengers in the post-credits scene, and then having Stark name-drop them in the Hulk post-credits scene, was a pretty clear tip they were hoping to go that direction.

 

I almost feel like the way DC keeps announcing all these movies they have planned is mostly about trying to generate "buzz" to get people to go see their current films. "See, we're building this cool, inter-related universe! You need to see all the movies, even if they suck, because without them you won't be able to appreciate the later ones! Trust us! Don't be left out!"

[Christopher R Taylor]

From what I understand they just did the Fury thing at the end of Iron Man as a fun bit for fans, a reward for sticking out that long in the theater.  Nothing planned, no intentions, not a teaser for something greater.  They had no idea Iron Man was going to do well, let alone become a gigantic cultural phenomenon.  It was only afterward that they said "well hot damn, maybe we can do something here..." and for the first time in movie history set up a story with multiple characters by giving each one their own film to establish them (well, most of them).

[massey]

I think you give Marvel way too much credit. I think they did an Iron Man and a Hulk movie hoping they would sell. Iron Man seemed a lot more like Robocop than a Superhero Story to me. Then someone said "what if we tack on an Iron Man/Hulk end credit scene, just for chuckles". So they did. And they saw that the fans are interested in an Avengers movie.

 

So, what should we do for the Iron Man sequel? Hmmm...why don't we toss in SHIELD and a Black Widow character? WOW - the fans ate that up! Can we bolt something like that on to Thor? hmmm...what if we toss a Hawkeye cameo into the "Thor goes to retrieve his hammer" scene, and make it guarded by SHIELD.

 

Hey, these are REALLY selling - what's the next step? Well, everyone is squawking about Avengers. We'd need Captain America - let's end his movie with an Avengers teaser, and start thinking about that next movie.

 

By that time, we have a franchise going, and the Avengers success pushed us into the next set of characters, so maybe a bit more "what characters can we build for the next one" started, but I also think the success of GoTG was a surprise, so they got more tied in. Meanwhile, we start thinking about retconning these Infinity Stones in, to better tie the movies in, and because wow, did the fans eat up that Thanos cameo we thought would be a cute one-off at the end of Avengers.

 

I don't think that the Marvel Studios have a photo of the wall design tying all these movies together that dates back from the scriptwriting for Hulk and Iron Man.

 

That's exactly what it means to do it in a natural, organic way.

[zslane]

I wouldnt call it Marvel's approach. Marvel is doing things in a natural organic way. 

 

Another perfectly "natural organic way" to do it is to produce a team movie first, and then if it is successful, spin off solo movies for each of the other heroes after that. Let's not make the mistake of thinking that just because the Marvel approach has been successful that it is the only way to go about it. The X-Men movies were pretty successful before they spun off Wolverine (and by extension, Deadpool), for instance.

[Lord Liaden]

From what I understand they just did the Fury thing at the end of Iron Man as a fun bit for fans, a reward for sticking out that long in the theater.  Nothing planned, no intentions, not a teaser for something greater.  They had no idea Iron Man was going to do well, let alone become a gigantic cultural phenomenon.  It was only afterward that they said "well hot damn, maybe we can do something here..." and for the first time in movie history set up a story with multiple characters by giving each one their own film to establish them (well, most of them).

 

My understanding from remarks by Kevin Feige is rather the opposite. According to him Marvel Studios had in mind from the first Iron Man movie to build a connected series of films leading up to the first Avengers -- what they call "Phase One" -- although all the details weren't worked out at that point, and of course all that was conditional on Iron Man 1 doing sufficient box office.

 

Now, as far as Thanos becoming the ultimate "Phase Three" villain, that was almost certainly serendipity. Joss Whedon is on record as saying he included Thanos at the end of Avengers as an Easter egg for fans, without intending to do anything with him in future films. But the fans loved it, and Marvel decided to run with that.

[zslane]

There was an awful lot of serendipity involved there when you consider all the other Infinity Gauntlet elements that were laid down prior to The Avengers. Seems strange to use Thanos purely as an unrelated easter egg.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Another perfectly "natural organic way" to do it is to produce a team movie first, and then if it is successful, spin off solo movies for each of the other heroes after that. Let's not make the mistake of thinking that just because the Marvel approach has been successful that it is the only way to go about it. The X-Men movies were pretty successful before they spun off Wolverine (and by extension, Deadpool), for instance.

I agree with that sentiment. X-men did it organically, even if they made a few missteps along the way.

 

However with the DCEU, they are not doing it organically. They are forcing it big time. They dont wait to see how audiences react to the current movie to build on the natural ebb and flow of these things. They are rushing out their productions because they see their direct competition doing it, not taking into consideration the foundation their competition built over a decade and 5 films leading up to their team movie.

 

Honestly though, I have less of a problem that they are jumping right into their team movie and more of a problem that they are talking about (and filming) secondary character projects before even establishing their primary core characters.

 

Suicide squad was too early. And a Batgirl movie would be too early. They've barely talked about a Green Lantern movie and there's no sign of Martian Manhunter and yet they have already proposed Gotham City Sirens?

 

Yeah, its obvious DC has no idea what the hell they want to do. No plan. And no genius visionary guiding them. All they know is that they want some of those superhero billions! Hurry up and put the movies out!

[zslane]

I agree that the DCEU films feel rushed, but only in terms of overall vision. I mean, the movies themselves take just as long as any Marvel movie to make.

 

Now, just because Batgirl has "Bat" in front of her name doesn't mean DC has to wait for three Batman solo films and the JLA movie to come out before giving that character her own film. I can easily see them as being quite separable, especially since she's not a member of the Justice League. The key is to do it well, regardless of how tied (or not tied) it is to the rest of the JLA or Bat-franchise.

[NuSoardGraphite]

I agree that the DCEU films feel rushed, but only in terms of overall vision. I mean, the movies themselves take just as long as any Marvel movie to make.

 

Now, just because Batgirl has "Bat" in front of her name doesn't mean DC has to wait for three Batman solo films and the JLA movie to come out before giving that character her own film. I can easily see them as being quite separable, especially since she's not a member of the Justice League. The key is to do it well, regardless of how tied (or not tied) it is to the rest of the JLA or Bat-franchise.

As I said earlier, they dont need multiple batman movies before doing some spin offs, but they need at least one and to introduce Batgirl in that movie. I feel that Suicide Squad would have been a lot more effective with audiences if we had seen Harley get taken down by Batman and locked up at the end of the first Batfilm with Joker vowing to break her out, with Suicide Squad building on that beginning. If Amanda Walher had been introduced as opposition to the concept of the Justice League within the Military Industrial Complex before showing audiences her big plan to use villains to do the governments dirty work. DC is missing so many great opportunities here by rushing, frankly is sad and dishearening to watch.

[zslane]

...but they need at least one and to introduce Batgirl in that movie.

 

But why? I fail to see the need you refer to.

[slikmar]

I think you give Marvel way too much credit. I think they did an Iron Man and a Hulk movie hoping they would sell. Iron Man seemed a lot more like Robocop than a Superhero Story to me. Then someone said "what if we tack on an Iron Man/Hulk end credit scene, just for chuckles". So they did. And they saw that the fans are interested in an Avengers movie.

 

So, what should we do for the Iron Man sequel? Hmmm...why don't we toss in SHIELD and a Black Widow character? WOW - the fans ate that up! Can we bolt something like that on to Thor? hmmm...what if we toss a Hawkeye cameo into the "Thor goes to retrieve his hammer" scene, and make it guarded by SHIELD.

 

Hey, these are REALLY selling - what's the next step? Well, everyone is squawking about Avengers. We'd need Captain America - let's end his movie with an Avengers teaser, and start thinking about that next movie.

 

By that time, we have a franchise going, and the Avengers success pushed us into the next set of characters, so maybe a bit more "what characters can we build for the next one" started, but I also think the success of GoTG was a surprise, so they got more tied in. Meanwhile, we start thinking about retconning these Infinity Stones in, to better tie the movies in, and because wow, did the fans eat up that Thanos cameo we thought would be a cute one-off at the end of Avengers.

 

I don't think that the Marvel Studios have a photo of the wall design tying all these movies together that dates back from the scriptwriting for Hulk and Iron Man.

I would also point out, Coulson and Shield (though not the contraction) showed up in IM1.

[Lord Liaden]

There was an awful lot of serendipity involved there when you consider all the other Infinity Gauntlet elements that were laid down prior to The Avengers. Seems strange to use Thanos purely as an unrelated easter egg.

 

Um, what other Infinity Gauntlet elements were laid down? The only comparable thing even mentioned before the first Avengers was the Tesseract, which didn't even look like an Infinity Stone. It was an obvious Cosmic Cube riff. The way Loki's staff looked and how its effects were described, it seemed to be drawing its power from the Tesseract. It was definitely depicted as inferior in power to the Tesseract. There was no hint at the time that it contained another Infinity Stone. All the other Infinity references were introduced in Phase Two films.

[Lord Liaden]

I would also point out, Coulson and Shield (though not the contraction) showed up in IM1.

 

Nope, Coulson's last remark to Pepper Potts in IM 1 was, "just call us SHIELD."

[bigdamnhero]

Another perfectly "natural organic way" to do it is to produce a team movie first, and then if it is successful, spin off solo movies for each of the other heroes after that. Let's not make the mistake of thinking that just because the Marvel approach has been successful that it is the only way to go about it. The X-Men movies were pretty successful before they spun off Wolverine (and by extension, Deadpool), for instance.

True. Tho it's worth noting the X-Men all have the same origin (ie mutant), matching costumes, were all introduced together in the comics, and most of them have historically been known primarily through the team rather than as individuals. Not saying you couldn't do the same approach with Justice League, but it's harder because they're all individuals first who came together as a team second.

 

As I said earlier, they dont need multiple batman movies before doing some spin offs, but they need at least one and to introduce Batgirl in that movie.

I disagree. No need to introduce her in someone else's movie first. Whether or not we get the Batfleck Alone movie first* the public is already aware of Batman and his shtick. They didn't need to introduce Supergirl in a Superman movie first, and while that film obviously had its problems "Where did she come from I'm confused" wasn't one of them. See also the Supergirl TV show which didn't even bother showing Superman the whole first season. They might very well decide to tease Batgirl/Babs in the Batfleck movie, since they seem to be all about teasing as much as they can. But I don't think they need to.

 

The problem with Suicide Squad (well, one of them...) was that they tried to introduce too many characters all at once, not that they hadn't been introduced before.

 

* Tho I'm 90% certain we will.

[bigdamnhero]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Thor Dark World was the first time the Infinity Stones were referenced as such. I'd be willing to bet by the time they introduced Thanos and had him give Loki a staff in Avengers 1, they were at least planning on bring the Infinity Stones in, but there was no reason to clutter up the film with the reference.