The Spill Movie Community
If it's crap ... We'll tell you
Follow Spill!
Latest Activity
Longleke posted a discussionIdeal Director for a BioShock Movie?
Music
Why Green Lantern's Failure Isn't DC's Fault
DISCLAIMER: The point of this blog is not to analyze the failure of Green Lantern or to figure out who's to blame. I don't really care. The point is that DC Comics is at the mercy of Warner Brothers when it comes to the content that get produced based on their properties. This has pros and cons, but ultimately I hope to show that their involvement with GL was minimal.
With the critical and commercial failure of Warner Brothers' Green Lantern and the extreme negativity revolving around DC Comics' upcoming, company-wide (with exceptions) reboot, it's not uncommon to go into a chatroom, message board, or comments section and find statements like, "DC sucks!" or "DC can't get their shit together!"
Look, I can't help them when it comes to their reboot. I don't understand why they're doing it if it's not a true reboot (their GL and Batman titles will continue unaffected). I also can't sympathize with the fans that can't comprehend that all their stories are imaginary, and that just because a story from last year may no longer be "in continuity" it doesn't mean that it was ripped from their hands. Sure, I was angry when Mark Waid's Birthright and Legion of Super-Heroes replaced decades-old stories, only to then quickly be retconned out in favor of Geoff Johns' own interpretations (within just 5 years!), but I favor a total reboot over headache-inducing retcons.
What I can do is step in and say that when you say, "Man, all DC can get right when it comes to movies is Batman!" You're wrong. DC has little to do with the Batman films, or any of the other media.
Until 2009, DC Comics was owned by Time Warner, a massive media conglomerate. For several decades, thanks to synergy, the movie rights to several characters were sold to Warner Brothers, the entertainment side of Time Warner. Marvel did essentially the same thing, only because they didn't have a parent company, the rights to all their characters ended up at various different studios (which is why the notion of a Avengers movie was legally impossible for a while). But whereas Marvel, thanks to its independence and dominance in the comic book industry, was able to first form Marvel Entertainment and eventally Marvel Studios, DC remained a comic book company that licenses its characters. DC did not make any of the movies, shows, or video games you dearly love. Warner Brothers (and its various subsidiaries) did. Yes, they were owned by the same company, but they were managed by competely different people.
Now I realize that things have changed. In September of '09, Warner Brothers bought DC as part of a restructuring move. DC Comics is now owned by DC Entertainment (which in turn is owned by WB, which is still owned by Time Warner). The problem is that they're just now where Marvel was ten years ago. Marvel Entertainment had credit on Spider-Man and X-Men, but they really didn't have any power. Similarly, while Geoff Johns was a "creative consultant" on Green Lantern, that didn't mean shit for the film, did it? Jonah Hex deviated from the source material in many... strange ways last year. And there's still no "shared universe" plan in place. If you read the press release that announces the formation of DCE, you'll even notice that it's vague about what the company actually does. Warner Bros. Television continues to produce their shows; Warner Premiere handles the animated DTVs; Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment is in charge of video games based on their characters; and the films have all been produced by different studios and distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures.
For comparison, look at what Marvel is doing. After getting back the rights to several of their key characters, Marvel opened Marvel Studios and appointed Kevin Feige to produce all of their films (he is the sole credited producer on this year's Thor and Captain America), whereas previous "Marvel Entertainment" films had been produced by Avi Arad and Lauren Shuler Donner - producers who make other movies too. Feige's focus is entirely on Marvel's films because he works for them.
That's yet to happen with WB's DC films. Donald De Line and Greg Berlanti were proudly in charge of bringing you this summer's Green Lantern, while Christopher Nolan & Emma Thomas will produce next year's Batman & Superman films. Here's the key thing: none of them work for DC. DC isn't any more responsible for the actual production of these films than Marvel was for Spider-Man, Daredevil, Hulk, Fantastic Four, Blade, or X-Men.
I point this out because just as few people hold Marvel itself responsible for the failures of Hulk and Elektra, so shouldn't you directly blame DC because Jonah Hex and Green Lantern have been among the biggest summer bombs in recent history. They don't have control over what gets produced. The best they can do is send Geoff Johns over to go, "Hey guys! You should use Parallax in your movie!" I mean, it's not like he's going to even have anything to do with The Dark Knight Rises. Warner Brothers would stop him before he gets to the set, grab him by the collar, and tell him, "Don't you fuck with Mr. Nolan. That man has made us over a billion and a half dollars."
There are pros and cons to how business has been conducted so far. I don't think Batman Begins and The Dark Knight would've been as good films if there'd been someone in charge going, "We need three geeky references in this scene, and you need to rewrite the ending into a cliffhanger that leads into next year's Justice League movie. Also, introduce Aquaman so we don't have to waste money on a film that won't make back its budget, but also so the audience knows who he is when he shows up in next year's Justice League movie. Did we mention we're making a Justice League movie next year?" That's just not how I think movies should be made.
But if you're going to bitch and moan, point your complaints at the right people.
ADDENDUM: After reading through the comments, it's clear that there's confusion.
1) As I said before, the point was never to point the blame at someone. The film did badly at the box office because it's not a good film. And this isn't the Great Mystery of Why GL Is So Bad. The flaws are on the screen and have been pointed out ad naseum. Repeating them accomplishes nothing. Others liked the movie - great.
I made this blog post because I've seen people talk as if DC is an identical company as Marvel. I tried to explain the structure of DC in relation to Time Warner and Warner Brothers in the hopes that it would explain why it's taking so long to get a Wonder Woman movie, or a Flash movie, or even a Justice League movie. It's because different producers are trying to adapt these properties, and no one is working in tandem - PLUS, the same producers have other projects that they're working on. They have no commitment to getting a good Superman movie on the screen - they just care if it'll make them money.
2) I've been criticized because if DC is allowing this to happen; allowing their properties get mined because of their own business decisions, then how are they not responsible for how bad GL was? That's easy. Because they didn't make it. In a karmic way, DC may be responsible, but they did not make the movie. Conversely, how amazing was The Dark Knight? It was the same business practices that led up to that movie being made - but they didn't make it either!
Marvel made Iron Man, Thor, Incredible Hulk, Captain America, and The Avengers. They have more personal investment in these projects. You cannot say that DC made The Dark Knight or Green Lantern because that is a false statement.
Comment
-
Comment by Paul Monroe on July 17, 2011 at 10:22am -
Well, perhaps it seemed like a very good idea to produce a Green Lantern movie.
First of all GL is an instantly recognisable super hero.
Secondly, most modern Super hero movies have been successes.
There's also the fact that most movies a big uncertain bets. Something that seemed to have huge potential gets derailed during the process of actually producing it. It happens all the time.
I would also like to express my own opinion that Marvel super heroes are indeed more interesting than the DC ones.
Superman and Batman are great, yet other super heroes such as the Flash or Wonder Woman aren't as interesting as Marvel heroes.
When it comes to Green Lantern there's also the fact that it is a little forcefull to make the hero struggle to get things done when his ring can instantly produce anything he wants. The comics got this, and like money (the green) it ended up corrupting Hal Jordan. In the movie, his green power actually turns him into a better person.
-
Comment by Mainstream12 on July 11, 2011 at 7:01pm -
@Mike M. - You keep reiterating my point - WB OWNS DC. It's not that DC is "too scared" to stand up to WB; it's that once WB has the rights (which isn't hard, because they own DC, the company they're getting the rights from), they basically get to do what they want. You can keep blaming DC for giving those rights away, but that action in and of itself isn't a bad thing. As I mentioned, TDK is a product of the same deal.
With the creation of DCE and appointing Geoff Johns as a creative consultant on "future films" (how much you wanna' bet that excludes TDKR?), they're taking a step forward, but still have no control. A creative consultant does not and can not give input on the script itself; they just answer questions. Geoff was just there to make GL as geeky as possible (at which, IMO, it succeeds).
This is directly comparable to Fox making Marvel films because Marvel DID have involvement on all of the films Fox made. Marvel Entertainment is listed as a studio on every single Fox film based on Marvel characters since the first X-Men film. But like Green Lantern, all that involved was sending over a creative consultant.
I agree that DC should make every effort to ensure that WB makes good films, but no matter how loud they yell, WB is the owner. They don't have to listen.
-
Comment by Mike M. on July 10, 2011 at 11:28pm -
@Kal- Yes, you're right that DC doesn't get to choose that. But it is still owned by WB.
I may hate a Marvel film made by Fox, but besides that film, those companies don't really have anything to do with each other.
BUT DC IS OWNED BY WB, there is a clear connection, even outside of the films. If WB makes a bad movie, its because DC gave it enough rights too.
With Marvel it's a bit different. They sold a lot of their characters' film rights in the mid-80's and 90's to make some money. In fact, Fox gave them a notoriously bad deal for the X-Men franchise, however, Marvel has been in the process of slowly buying its characters back. I no longer watch Marvel films by Fox, as is more people boycott them, Marvel can buy the rights back and integrate them into their universes.
DC never has that option. DC can't buy its film rights back from WB, because WB owns it and all of its characters!
If Marvel was owned by Fox, then I could blame the owners of the film (both Fox and Marvel) for making bad films. But because only Fox owns the film rights, Fox gets the blame. Marvel has no reason to put pressure on them. DC is a different story. They're connected enough with WB that DC should make a better effort to get their property the film it deserves. Instead they're the whipping boy, they're too scared to stand up to WB, and they just hang their head in shame.
-
Comment by Xa Lor on July 10, 2011 at 9:42pm -
meh
-
Comment by Mainstream12 on July 10, 2011 at 7:06pm
-
@Xa Lor - I think it's pretty clear why the film failed. I'm not sure anyone is confused about it.
-
Comment by Xa Lor on July 10, 2011 at 6:10pm
-
you wanna know the biggest reason why the films sucked, it was the production team, script: poor actors: poor Plot: predictable and poor. Look a film is not a comic, so geeks can say and complain whatever or how much they want it to be true to true believers its not going to happen. Film especially if you guys are talking about super hero movies is handled by Hollywood. An engine that strives on profit more rather than art. Most importantly sometimes others who aren't comic book fans might enjoy the film, for what it is a film. I don't think Hulk was bad, although I will not say it is perfection either. Comic book fans are not the only people that watches super hero movies, Hollywood sees that and they will try to branch and mold anything to appease their standards. In conclusion DC has negotiations with warner Bros, a main company that owns their distribution rights. Warner Bros is a part of Hollywood, which means it is part of an engine of profit. In conclusion why did the film fail, because it sucked and everyone's tired of superhero movies.
-
Comment by Mainstream12 on July 10, 2011 at 11:46am
-
@Mike M. - You said so yourself: you don't blame the writers and executives at DC for the poor quality of Green Lantern because they did not make the movie. I'm the first to admit that DC as a company has absolutely made tons of erroneous decisions over their lengthy history. But UNLIKE Marvel, which owns Marvel Studios, which is actually making Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, and Captain America, DC does not get to choose who writes, directs, or produces films based on their stuff.
With DC and Warner Brothers, the chain of command is flipped. Warner Brothers owns DC and mines their properties. In my blog plot I mention that the people adapting DC properties don't work for DC - they work for WB. Marvel appointed Kevin Feige for the sole purpose of producing Marvel content, while neither Warner Brothers or DC Entertainment has anyone like that. That's my entire point.
WB owns a lot of companies - and you wouldn't blame any of them for GL being bad. You blame the people that worked on the fucking movie. I never intended to single anyone out (Campbell, Berlanti, DeLine, etc.), but DC itself is in the clear on this one. Criticizing them for letting the properties get passed around is overlooking their tremendous success in animation as well as the monumental success of The Dark Knight, which for the record, no, I don't consider them as having anything to do with TDK's success either. WB lucked out.
-
Comment by Mike M. on July 10, 2011 at 10:18am
-
continued from previous post...
So do I blame the writers and executives at DC for how bad this movie is? No. Do I blame DC itself? Yes, as it is a significant part in a machine that is designed to bring in family safe entertainment which puts profit over quality.
As for the comics reboot; there are two reasons for that. First is a copyright issue, with the rights to Superman reverting to one of the creators' family, DC has to make some changes so that they don't have to pay royalties. The second is that during some weeks, Marvel has over 50% of the books being released on the shelves, and DC can't compete at that level, WB is pressuring them to do something big to increase sales. This reboot is the result.
In the end, the majority of the blame comes down to WB, but DC had let itself get caught in a place where it had so little power to object and create its own visions that it too deserves a large portion of responsibility for its characters films and franchises failures.
-
Comment by Mike M. on July 10, 2011 at 10:09am
-
You mentioned it in here: WB ownes DC. So yes, you could blame DC for the movie's failure.
Should you blame any of the executives or writers at DC, but overall, the company has a direct connection to the film. It's not like Marvel where all of their heroes were treated like actors and given to different studios to make films of. All of DC's films and characters are owned by Warner Brothers. There is no reason DC shouldn't have done ten years ago what Marvel is doing now.
If you think about it, DC films are responsible for the original popularity of Superhero films (with the Superman and Batman franchises.) but they are also responsible for the near death of the Superhero film genre (With the Superman and Batman Franchises, along with Steel, Supergirl, and a ton of other garbage that people want to remember.) It was only the Blade, X-Men and Spider-Man movies that showed WB that people were wanted to watch superhero films. Then DC got back in the game.
The problem is that WB hasn't learned from it's mistakes from it's old Superhero movies. They give Nolan free range, sure, but the rest of the films are laden down with problems that they had in the mid-90's. Remember, WB has a lot of old executives whose only exposure to heroes is what they saw on TV and films (and probably not the cartoons.)
What they want is another Batman Forever, one that is critically acceptable, bright and family friendly, and easy to merchandise. Sure Dark Knight had critical praise, and box office success, but how much toys could you sell to kids based off it? And that's what the Green Lantern movie was, Batman Forever, you had a likable hero, a bright fun environment, a strong female for a love interest and girls to relate too, and of course lots and lots of chances for merchandising tie ins.
-
Comment by Luke Hero on July 10, 2011 at 7:26am -
Green Lantern sucked, because all of the dialogue sounded like it was from some corny TV show and parallax was the wrong choice of villain
© 2013 Created by The Spill Crew.
You need to be a member of The Spill Movie Community to add comments!
Join The Spill Movie Community