The DC Comics Thread

Pretty strong, harsh words... what are everyone's opinions on this?

Based on WB's performance as of late, I don't think he's far off the mark (except for The Hobbit, that was NOT a case of Peter Jackson phoning it in, he was basically holding a ship together in a manner that most lesser directors would have surely failed). I did a fairly long(winded) FB post on this topic based on my recent observations about how the studio has been functioning compared to how they used to operate in the previous decade.

Disclaimer: WARNING: LONG POST INCOMING.
This is purely a speculation/opinion piece, not backed by any exclusively discovered inside information, based on the recent film output of Warner Bros. over the last three years and a broad attempt to discuss why they have been performing as they have been lately, and who I believe is the man responsible for the decline.

Warner Bros is having a tough time. For the better part of the 2000s, they were THE No. 1 film studio, with the likes of The Matrix Trilogy, The Dark Knight Trilogy and of course the Harry Potter series garnering (mostly) high praise as well high box office success. Now there’s something of a paradigm shift: their biggest rival, Walt Disney Studios, now tower above the others with Marvel superhero films, the newly relaunched Star Wars, and animated films all doing extraordinarily well with critics and audiences. So what exactly happened?

The answer is simple: a change in leadership. My hypothesis is that ever since Kevin Tsujihara has become CEO of Warner Bros, the studio has struggled immensely due to questionable competence. He’s not as bad as Tom Rothman in his insatiable hatred of genre films, but the decisions made issued from WB lately have been troubling. The breakdown of my argument is this:

1) The last man in charge had a better handle on the studio. Barry Meyer became Chief Executive Officer (C.E.O.) of Warner Bros. on October 4, 1999, after previously overseeing their TV and animated series division. Under Meyer’s leadership, Warner Bros. has consistently ranked as one of the strongest, most profitable and best-positioned studios in the industry. In 2009, Warner Bros. Pictures’ domestic division had its most successful year ever, and both the domestic and international division had their ninth consecutive billion dollar-plus years at the box office. Among the last films greenlit in his tenure were Man of Steel and The Hobbit, the latter a case of 11th hour executive meddling and the other was a more tightly run ship that marked the start of the DC Cinematic Universe that Tsujihara inherited. Basically, Meyer had more experience in the field and had a quality track record.

Tsujihara is a hands-on executive but not in a good way. He’s altered the way Warners manages its operations and exploits key intellectual property assets, like those from its DC Entertainment division. He has chosen to keep significant power in his own hands on the film side, getting into the weeds and retaining greenlight control, a drastic departure from how Meyer had delegated that authority to movie chief Alan Horn. Horn, as many may know, is now chairman of Disney. He's also credited as an executive producer on the first (and best) Hobbit film.

2) Promotion of promising new films has been second-rate. Edge of Tomorrow, Mad Max: Fury Road, The Man from U.N.C.L.E., and The Nice Guys are all examples of generally well-received films that had horrible marketing, either giving audiences a poor idea of what the film really is, or a lack of increased awareness for the film or property. Indeed, in the top ten highest grossing films of 2015, not a single Warner Bros film managed to crack that list. They also suffered severe flops from stinkers like Jupiter Ascending and Pan. Part of the “flop” status for Edge of Tomorrow is attributed to poor marketing that didn’t show enough of the humor or characters. When marketing the DVD release, Warner Bros. added the line “Live. Die. Repeat.” This, in my opinion, only made audiences more confused. A lot of this could have been avoided if they didn't change names so many times.

3) Executive Meddling has risen greatly. While WB certainly allowed Legendary Pictures, Ben Affleck, Doug Liman, Christopher Nolan and Lord & Miller to do their own thing without interference, the same can’t be said for everyone.

a) Peter Jackson: After Guillermo Del Toro left The Hobbit unfinished to begin work on Pacific Rim, the studio gave Peter Jackson and Weta Workshop only six months of pre-production and told him to start filming immediately afterwards or else. This was under Meyer’s tenure, but it led to the filming process being extremely difficult for everyone involved due to the lack of planning time, which came to a boiling point in 2014. The budding romance between Kili and Tauriel was not a part of the original footage shot in 2011-2012; it was added to “beef up” the second film during re-shoots in 2013. When re-shoots were done to turn it into three films, matters were complicated the studio forced them to write Legolas into the love story and turn it into a love triangle. Both Evangeline Lilly and Peter Jackson have admitted they hated the idea of a love triangle and wanted the story to be more focused.

Reports of further studio interference were confirmed by Graham Mc Tavish and Evangeline Lilly, with McTavish confirming the theatrical cut for the third film isn't what Jackson intended, with final edit having been taken away from him at the last minute, and that the extended cuts of all three films are closer to Jackson’s original vision. Amongst other things, the studio demanded more emphasis on the love story and the unfunny comic relief known as Alfrid. Originally, 30 minutes of extended material was intended for the Extended Edition, of the third film, but 10 minutes was chopped off without Jackson’s permission. The final film suffered in the editing department, but the extended cuts are considered the go-to versions for fans, despite the many noted problems. But more success could have been made, enough to rival Transformers 4, if not for the last-minute meddling.

b) Zack Snyder: You all know the stories. Whether or not you liked Batman v Superman (either opinion is valid) there is still a real sense that the theatrical cut was choppy and confusing, omitting small but subtle scenes that added to the characters and the story. The Ultimate Edition is a generally smoother cut, better and illustrating character motivations and filling in sizeable plot holes, such as the Senate House bomb scene and why Supes didn’t see it. I believe that if the Ultimate Edition was the only version we ever got to see, the reception to the film would have been warmer, if still divisive. Allegedly, the people at Warner Bros gave the 3 hour cut a standing ovation, and then there was the infamous Hitfix scoop that indicated WB was in panic mode after test screenings for the theatrical cut turned out less than expected. I can only attribute that the theatrical cut was issued in order to allow for more screenings. This was the same conceit that ultimately backfired with the third Hobbit film, believing that a shorter film would be better received, when it was ironically more divisive than its predecessor.

c) David Ayer: The Hollywood Reporter indicates that Warner Bros. brought in multiple editors (uncredited in the final version of the film) to piece together a “lighter, studio-favoured version” for Suicide Squad that was shown to test audiences alongside director David Ayer’s “more somber version”. We’ve seen this change reflected in the marketing, becoming snazzier, brighter and more colourful closer to release. Essentially, the director and the studio were at odds for the kind of film to put out and things got heated between them.

In conclusion, I am willing to lay my finger on Tsujihara’s lack of competence and reactionary “leadership” as part of the reason why WB is struggling so much. Individual film makers certainly have had a degree of influence on all of this, but it falls to the CEO to manage his film projects sensibly. Now with WB doubling down on franchise pictures (more Lego, D.C. and Harry Potter) rather than greenlighting original screenplays.

If it's real ((There's some doubts)) it's because she got fired. No one's taking it seriously.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Pretty strong, harsh words... what are everyone's opinions on this?

Based on WB's performance as of late, I don't think he's far off the mark (except for The Hobbit, that was NOT a case of Peter Jackson phoning it in, he was basically holding a ship together in a manner that most lesser directors would have surely failed). I did a fairly long(winded) FB post on this topic based on my recent observations about how the studio has been functioning compared to how they used to operate in the previous decade.

Disclaimer: WARNING: LONG POST INCOMING.
This is purely a speculation/opinion piece, not backed by any exclusively discovered inside information, based on the recent film output of Warner Bros. over the last three years and a broad attempt to discuss why they have been performing as they have been lately, and who I believe is the man responsible for the decline.

Warner Bros is having a tough time. For the better part of the 2000s, they were THE No. 1 film studio, with the likes of The Matrix Trilogy, The Dark Knight Trilogy and of course the Harry Potter series garnering (mostly) high praise as well high box office success. Now there’s something of a paradigm shift: their biggest rival, Walt Disney Studios, now tower above the others with Marvel superhero films, the newly relaunched Star Wars, and animated films all doing extraordinarily well with critics and audiences. So what exactly happened?

The answer is simple: a change in leadership. My hypothesis is that ever since Kevin Tsujihara has become CEO of Warner Bros, the studio has struggled immensely due to questionable competence. He’s not as bad as Tom Rothman in his insatiable hatred of genre films, but the decisions made issued from WB lately have been troubling. The breakdown of my argument is this:

1) The last man in charge had a better handle on the studio. Barry Meyer became Chief Executive Officer (C.E.O.) of Warner Bros. on October 4, 1999, after previously overseeing their TV and animated series division. Under Meyer’s leadership, Warner Bros. has consistently ranked as one of the strongest, most profitable and best-positioned studios in the industry. In 2009, Warner Bros. Pictures’ domestic division had its most successful year ever, and both the domestic and international division had their ninth consecutive billion dollar-plus years at the box office. Among the last films greenlit in his tenure were Man of Steel and The Hobbit, the latter a case of 11th hour executive meddling and the other was a more tightly run ship that marked the start of the DC Cinematic Universe that Tsujihara inherited. Basically, Meyer had more experience in the field and had a quality track record.

Tsujihara is a hands-on executive but not in a good way. He’s altered the way Warners manages its operations and exploits key intellectual property assets, like those from its DC Entertainment division. He has chosen to keep significant power in his own hands on the film side, getting into the weeds and retaining greenlight control, a drastic departure from how Meyer had delegated that authority to movie chief Alan Horn. Horn, as many may know, is now chairman of Disney. He's also credited as an executive producer on the first (and best) Hobbit film.

2) Promotion of promising new films has been second-rate. Edge of Tomorrow, Mad Max: Fury Road, The Man from U.N.C.L.E., and The Nice Guys are all examples of generally well-received films that had horrible marketing, either giving audiences a poor idea of what the film really is, or a lack of increased awareness for the film or property. Indeed, in the top ten highest grossing films of 2015, not a single Warner Bros film managed to crack that list. They also suffered severe flops from stinkers like Jupiter Ascending and Pan. Part of the “flop” status for Edge of Tomorrow is attributed to poor marketing that didn’t show enough of the humor or characters. When marketing the DVD release, Warner Bros. added the line “Live. Die. Repeat.” This, in my opinion, only made audiences more confused. A lot of this could have been avoided if they didn't change names so many times.

3) Executive Meddling has risen greatly. While WB certainly allowed Legendary Pictures, Ben Affleck, Doug Liman, Christopher Nolan and Lord & Miller to do their own thing without interference, the same can’t be said for everyone.

a) Peter Jackson: After Guillermo Del Toro left The Hobbit unfinished to begin work on Pacific Rim, the studio gave Peter Jackson and Weta Workshop only six months of pre-production and told him to start filming immediately afterwards or else. This was under Meyer’s tenure, but it led to the filming process being extremely difficult for everyone involved due to the lack of planning time, which came to a boiling point in 2014. The budding romance between Kili and Tauriel was not a part of the original footage shot in 2011-2012; it was added to “beef up” the second film during re-shoots in 2013. When re-shoots were done to turn it into three films, matters were complicated the studio forced them to write Legolas into the love story and turn it into a love triangle. Both Evangeline Lilly and Peter Jackson have admitted they hated the idea of a love triangle and wanted the story to be more focused.

Reports of further studio interference were confirmed by Graham Mc Tavish and Evangeline Lilly, with McTavish confirming the theatrical cut for the third film isn't what Jackson intended, with final edit having been taken away from him at the last minute, and that the extended cuts of all three films are closer to Jackson’s original vision. Amongst other things, the studio demanded more emphasis on the love story and the unfunny comic relief known as Alfrid. Originally, 30 minutes of extended material was intended for the Extended Edition, of the third film, but 10 minutes was chopped off without Jackson’s permission. The final film suffered in the editing department, but the extended cuts are considered the go-to versions for fans, despite the many noted problems. But more success could have been made, enough to rival Transformers 4, if not for the last-minute meddling.

b) Zack Snyder: You all know the stories. Whether or not you liked Batman v Superman (either opinion is valid) there is still a real sense that the theatrical cut was choppy and confusing, omitting small but subtle scenes that added to the characters and the story. The Ultimate Edition is a generally smoother cut, better and illustrating character motivations and filling in sizeable plot holes, such as the Senate House bomb scene and why Supes didn’t see it. I believe that if the Ultimate Edition was the only version we ever got to see, the reception to the film would have been warmer, if still divisive. Allegedly, the people at Warner Bros gave the 3 hour cut a standing ovation, and then there was the infamous Hitfix scoop that indicated WB was in panic mode after test screenings for the theatrical cut turned out less than expected. I can only attribute that the theatrical cut was issued in order to allow for more screenings. This was the same conceit that ultimately backfired with the third Hobbit film, believing that a shorter film would be better received, when it was ironically more divisive than its predecessor.

c) David Ayer: The Hollywood Reporter indicates that Warner Bros. brought in multiple editors (uncredited in the final version of the film) to piece together a “lighter, studio-favoured version” for Suicide Squad that was shown to test audiences alongside director David Ayer’s “more somber version”. We’ve seen this change reflected in the marketing, becoming snazzier, brighter and more colourful closer to release. Essentially, the director and the studio were at odds for the kind of film to put out and things got heated between them.

In conclusion, I am willing to lay my finger on Tsujihara’s lack of competence and reactionary “leadership” as part of the reason why WB is struggling so much. Individual film makers certainly have had a degree of influence on all of this, but it falls to the CEO to manage his film projects sensibly. Now with WB doubling down on franchise pictures (more Lego, D.C. and Harry Potter) rather than greenlighting original screenplays.

You know, Comic Book Girl 19 said that WB should consider blowing up the whole DCCU and start all over again.



I wouldn't go that far, but...

I can't help but wonder if Marvel's stranglehold on the superhero movie genre is so strong and that WB/DC came in so late and are rushing things so fast, that WB/DC should have even bothered to try to make their own.

You say that when MoS-BvS-SS have all made more together in a row then the MCU has ever done in a row. Critic reviews mean jackshit tbh.

Patty Jenkins has gone off on the letter calling it fake. I'm inclined to believe her more then something without a source.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

You know, Comic Book Girl 19 said that WB should consider blowing up the whole DCCU and start all over again.

Personally, I'm not putting any stock on ComicBookGirl19's opinions. Harsh to say I know, but I honestly think she's become increasingly narrow-minded, opinionated and self-entitled. I don't mind if she hates the DCEU moving forward (there is the more tightly run and generally more enjoyable CW-verse to enjoy), and I don't even mind her Marvel bias, but I do take issue with her sledge-hammer like approach to a variety of topics.

The tipping point for me was on a Jurassic World related video, discussing the concept art for the human/dinosaur hybrids. She just went on and on and on about how bad the JP sequels are, how the series jumped the shark once the Mosasaurus ate the shark from the cable and how each new sequel apparently takes away from the magic of the first film. She also didn't get the news about J.A Bayona directing the next film, that should have at least given her reason not to jump to all the wrong conclusions. I don't even care if she hates Jurassic World, but her exact words concerning people who like the film (a.k.a. people like us) went like this:

"If you liked Jurassic World... I don't know what to do with you."

As though we are somehow less intelligent and less capable of our own faculties for enjoyment than herself. Also, it took the guy T-Bone one scene of the dinosaur gynmastics in The Lost World to "ruin his childhood", he never had a childhood. I'm sorry, guys, but this woman just drives me round the bend.

Mysterious Hero M wrote:

You say that when MoS-BvS-SS have all made more together in a row then the MCU has ever done in a row. Critic reviews mean jackshit tbh.

Just because a movie makes a lot of money doesn't make it good. Look how much money the Transformers movies have made, and a lot of people don't like them.

Kevin Conroy, the man that most of us know as THE voice of Batman, did not like how Batman was portrayed in BvS.

He didn't say he disliked it lol. He said he wasn't onboard with Batman killing. Also no but opinions are subjective not objective.

Despite a huge drop, Suicide Squad fends off Sausage Party to hold on to the #1 spot.

Jared Leno doesn't like WB. Says he was tricked to play The Joker.

Now I will say this, I haven't seen BvS or Suicide Squad but various things have turned me off of DC's superhero universe. Man of Steel made me very hopeful for DC moving forward after the great success of the Nolan trilogy (I do think that it isn't a "true" representation of the Batman universe but it's the best movie version we have); however, after hearing that DC was throwing a new Batman interpretation into a movie with Man of Steel's Superman without any other movies I lost hope. There just seemed to be a total lack of planning and it gives the impression that some executive at WB just woke up one day and said "Let's create a superhero universe to combat Marvel's!" That lack of planning along with the plethora of new characters being squeezed into one movie turned me off of BvS way before it went into theaters.

The reason as to why I'm also turned off by Suicide Squad is a bit different; for one, some of the character's visual portrayals don't look very good. Quinn's costume is a bit much (I understand that she's meant to be eye candy to the male audience but they could have gone for a costume that was more inspired by the original depiction), Killer Croc looks awful (this portrayal looks more like the Thing from fantastic 4 than anything remotely crocodilian) and Joker looks way too blingy and "hipster-ish". The whole movie just screams for public approval not really caring about being a good comic book movie (the fact that they cast Will Smith and chose to make Joker and Harley's relationship an actually relationship are what backs this up.)

Megaspino2 wrote:

Now I will say this, I haven't seen BvS or Suicide Squad but various things have turned me off of DC's superhero universe. Man of Steel made me very hopeful for DC moving forward after the great success of the Nolan trilogy (I do think that it isn't a "true" representation of the Batman universe but it's the best movie version we have); however, after hearing that DC was throwing a new Batman interpretation into a movie with Man of Steel's Superman without any other movies I lost hope. There just seemed to be a total lack of planning and it gives the impression that some executive at WB just woke up one day and said "Let's create a superhero universe to combat Marvel's!" That lack of planning along with the plethora of new characters being squeezed into one movie turned me off of BvS way before it went into theaters.

The reason as to why I'm also turned off by Suicide Squad is a bit different; for one, some of the character's visual portrayals don't look very good. Quinn's costume is a bit much (I understand that she's meant to be eye candy to the male audience but they could have gone for a costume that was more inspired by the original depiction), Killer Croc looks awful (this portrayal looks more like the Thing from fantastic 4 than anything remotely crocodilian) and Joker looks way too blingy and "hipster-ish". The whole movie just screams for public approval not really caring about being a good comic book movie (the fact that they cast Will Smith and chose to make Joker and Harley's relationship an actually relationship are what backs this up.)

Harley Quinn does look a bit too much like a slut. As for her relationship with Joker, if it was a dysfunctional relationship where they still loved each other, via Gomez and Morticia Addams, then I doubt that people would have cared much since it would have made sense. But the fact that it's a normal one just rubs people the wrong way. I get why people like the movie since it's unconventional, but even then, it does feel a bit sloppy.

^ The fact that the Joker is trying to save his "love" throughout the movie is concerning to me because it shows the writers do not have a clue about who the Joker really is. I understand trying to get a new interpretation of him but this edits a key point of his character. At the end of the day Joker only "cares" for one individual, Batman. The Joker has been shown in multiple medias that he doesn't truely love Harley and is using her. Their relationship is supposed to be toxic, and it's what makes Harley's character insane. Her love/obsession for Joker is so strong that she continues to put up with verbal and physical abuse just to get his approval. That entire dynamic is missing from Suicide Squad. God help the writers if/when they make a solo Batman movie featuring Joker, hopefully they will have a better grasp on the character.

It just seems that the casual on-lookers of the Batman franchise have made the assumption that there's a real relationship between them (based on the metric ton of memes floating around.) In their minds I guess it's some kind of quirky relationship between two quirky people when it really is toxic.

Except Joker did exactly that in B:TAS lol.

Suicide Squad holds off Sauage Party again to still be number one. It's also made around $550 million dollars.

An uncropped image that was cut from Suicide Squad shows the abusive realationship between The Joker and Harley Quinn.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

An uncropped image that was cut from Suicide Squad shows the abusive realationship between The Joker and Harley Quinn.

There's a leaked set clip from a while ago that showed him hitting her. Now as against abuse as I am, this was what was missing from the Harley/Joker relationship in the film. She's never an equal to Joker, never the outright love interest, just a toy, or a tool to use when he wants and drop her off a building when he's done. And he knows she'll always come back to him.

TheDreamMaster wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

An uncropped image that was cut from Suicide Squad shows the abusive realationship between The Joker and Harley Quinn.

There's a leaked set clip from a while ago that showed him hitting her. Now as against abuse as I am, this was what was missing from the Harley/Joker relationship in the film. She's never an equal to Joker, never the outright love interest, just a toy, or a tool to use when he wants and drop her off a building when he's done. And he knows she'll always come back to him.  

I still think it's possible to have them be a loving couple, but only if it's a dysfunctional relationship via Gomez and Morticia Addams on steroids.

i think this illustrates a big problem that DC is facing: much like Star Wars, it seems their fandom is unpleaseable. "Boo! BvS is too dark and edgy!" "Boo! Suicide Squad is too light and fluffy!"

Yeah basically.

Deathstroke Will Menace Ben Affleck in Solo Batman Movie

DC Comics Announces Justice League vs. Suicide Squad Miniseries

Well, Suicide Squad was garbage, but I did enjoy a couple of performances, more specifically Jared Leto and Will Smith. Margot Robbie was all like "Look at me how crazy I am! I'm really really crazy, I promise!", and that's not how crazies behave. Music was annoying and most of the characters likewise, but got a couple of good laughs out of it. At least the frantic pace made time pass much more quickly than in BvS.

Can Poison Ivy be killed with a venomous snakebite or from exposure to biological weapons (anthrax, bubonic plague, etc)?

Harley Quinn Getting Her Own Film: Margot Robbie to Produce

Dead2009 wrote:

Harley Quinn Getting Her Own Film: Margot Robbie to Produce

I think it's too soon for her to be doing that. She's still fairly new and rushing to be a producer just seems too much, too soon.

Time Warner CEO Offers Timetable for Solo Batman Movie

Mysterious Hero M wrote:

Also so far the DCEU has made 3 movies in a row with 100+ million at the box office. Which doesn't really mean anything but not even Marvel's done 3 in a row with 100+ million.

You say that when MoS-BvS-SS have all made more together in a row then the MCU has ever done in a row. Critic reviews mean jackshit tbh.

The Avengers, Iron Man 3 and Thor: The Dark World all would like a word with you. That combo not only achieved the former, they are also way ahead of that combo in total gross. By the score of a billion or so. The first two beat the DC by themselves, Thor is just the icing. Domestically, Avengers basically equals MOS and BVS by itself and then IM3 has 400 million to throw around. DCEU isn't even DC's best contender against the MCU. TDK trilogy even beats DCEU right now even with a weak showing from Batman Begins fiscally.

All that said, that was with MCU already heavily underway, whereas DCEU is just beginning. But the MCU is more successful than given credit for. Phase 1 only saw IM have moderate success. After that the MCU took off.

Also Batman did not kill in the '66 series.

Here are some images of Amber Heard as Mera, Aquaman's Wife and Queen of Atlantis.

She looks quite good in that armored dress/suit.