Wow, the wizards at DC really seem determined to let Marvel own the multi-billion-dollar movie industry.

DC says that, after this year's Batman and Superman movies, it won't be producing anything else for at least three years. Marvel, by contrast, is producing several movies a year.


Marvel Entertainment is coming off a string of successful films, culminating in The Avengers — but meanwhile, its counterpart DC Entertainment can't get a non-Batman, non-Superman film off the ground. A new article in the L.A. Times reports that it will be "at least three years" before another DC movie hits our screens, besides this month's The Dark Knight Rises and next year's Man of Steel.

None of the other DC projects in the works has "a producer, director or cast," says the Times. Meanwhile, Marvel is set to put out a couple movies a year in 2013 and 2014. Warner Bros. reorganized DC Comics into DC Entertainment a few years ago, and many people predicted a fast track for movie projects — especially after DC Entertainment moved to L.A. But DC Chief Creative Officer Geoff Johns has played no role in the Nolan Batman films or Man of Steel, according to the Times. That makes Green Lantern the one big-screen product of this venture.

Christopher Nolan made it clear last weekend that he's not going to be involved in a Justice League movie — which didn't seem especially newsworthy, since Nolan's involvement in a JLA film always seemed highly unlikely. But according to the Times' sources, this came as a crushing blow to Warner Bros., which had been hoping to rope Nolan in to the Justice League picture, hopefully hitting screens in 2015. The DC strategy will be the opposite of Marvel's — launch a Justice League film, and then spin off all the League members into their own solo films.

That makes Green Lantern the one big-screen product of this venture.

Wow.

Sounds like they need their own Kevin Feige, isn't he kind of the driving force behind Marvel's movie success? At least that's the impression I get.

What DC needs is to fire Didio and reboot all their crap for one final run.

Seems like just yesterday DC Comics changed its name to DC Entertainment and shipped most of its operations to Los Angeles so it could focus on movie-making, with Geoff Johns in charge as "chief creative officer."

That certainly worked well.

I don't watch much television, but does DC have any series on at the moment? Seems like they've had much better returns in TV than Marvel has — the Superman and Batman series of the 50's and 60's, Lynda Carter Wonder Woman in the 70's, Isis and Captain Marvel, Superfriends, Plastic Man, Batman Adventures, Superboy/Lois & Clark, Smallville... I'm sure I've missed quite a few.

Marvel had those really short series of Cap, Sub-Mariner, Thor, Hulk and Iron Man in the 60's, the Torch-less H.E.R.B.I.E. FF, a pretty good animated Spider-Man, a really shitty live-action Spider-Man, Bixby's Incredible Sulk... er, Hulk, the forgettable Jessica Drew Spider-Woman, the great (as I recall) Spider-Man and Friends, the bizarre X-Men Evolution, something with bobble-head versions of the characters playing golf... what did I miss?

Marvel's winning in the movie department right now, but I would argue that DC has had the greater long-term success in television than Marvel has. TV generally has less initial investment than film and, more impportantly, larger and more immediate revenue streams (commercial sponsors).

Just looking at the last 10 to 15 years, DC probably leads Marvel in television (animated and live-action) as well as the straight-to-DVD animated movie market.

Personally, I was a big fan of Bruce Timm's animated versions of Batman, Superman and the Justice League in the 1990s and 2000s.

However, I don't think DC makes anywhere near as much money off its TV stuff as Marvel does from its movies. Marvel's movies are pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office. The whole world is going to see these movies. DC had "Smallville" on the CW network for 10 years. That audience had to number in the tens of thousands.

DC/WB has also kicked Marvel's caboose in the animation department for years. I've yet to see a Marvel cartoon anywhere near the quality of DC's.

To be fair DC does do a lot of movies and TV.

There have been several animated and live action TV series. Just the recent ones, Smallville, Human Target and now Arrow. Unaired pilots, Mercy Reef (aquaman), Global Frequency and Wonder Woman

Over Twenty animated movies, some direct to DVD. They are starting to do about three or four a year, since 2009. Two this year already, based on DC comics and Dark Knight Returns (part one) later this year.

Most of the theatrical movies are just not superhero movies. Besides Batman, Watchmen and Superman they've done...

Road to Perdition
A History of Violence
Constantine
V for Vendetta
Stardust
The Losers
LOEG
RED

Maybe not enough to justify the move like you're saying, but not nothing.

This clip might illustrate DC's movie problems better than anything. It's a scene with Robin in the Dark Knight Rises...

http://kotaku.com/5925107/60s-robin-is-a-hilariously-unsuitable-sidekick-for-the-dark-knight

I grant you that DC does a better job with animated projects.

But the point of the DC Entertainment switch and the move to Hollywood was to make blockbuster movies, to match Marvel's box office success. Joe, the list of non-superhero movies you cite (a) largely predates that plan and (b) did not gross much money.

The only movie produced thus far by DC Entertainment, with Geoff Johns at the creative helm, was last year's Green Lantern flick. That was a mild bomb. And that's pretty much the only movie we can judge DC Entertainment by at this point.

In 2016 or whenever they start to produce a JLA movie (if they do), we'll have more to judge them on. Of course, by then, Marvel will have made several billion more dollars with a dozen more movies.

Mild bomb?

I don't know why they don't go CGI. The video game guys made a more interesting JLA movie in just a few minutes than any live action superhero film I've ever seen, much better than the avengers, plus it would be so much easier to coordinate voice actors than it would movie stars...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7Nf-m6WGl4

Reviews were mostly negative to lukewarm. Fanboys weren't excited about it. The studio has considered starting over entirely with a reboot, as it did with Superman.

Financially, it had an estimated $200 million budget and made $219 million in worldwide gross. So it was in the black, but not by a lot.

I just thought you were being kind.

Maybe you're right.

But it made less money than the last Ghost Rider film. Sure GR:SOV only made 132,563,930 box office, but it's budget was a far less 57 million. Hell, just for fun I checked, Green Lantern actually made less money than John Carter. I stand by my original thought, you were being kind.

GL: $219,851,172 - Budget 200m = $ 19,851,172

JC: $282,778,100 - Budget 250m = $ 32,778,100

And if like you say, that's the only movie we can judge DC Entertainment by at this point. What the hell are the people that are dedicated to the movies side of things doing on a daily basis at DC Entertainment if that's all they have to show for it. Is there a list of projects somewhere?

Joe, I love the idea of going the CGI route. It'd differentiate DC's super-films from Marvel's enough to avoid direct comparison and enable them to take advantage of iconic voices like Kevin Conroy.

But, you know, I'm sure GJ has it all figured out. It's just a slow burn plan.

Or Joss Whedon. He has a history of sabotaging billion dollar franchises as compensation for his failed career, or something like that.

(I read it on the internet.)

*yawn*

I wish WB would try to compete in a unique way instead of just trying to emulate Marvel and their perceived forumla.

Remember when The Dark Knight was a big success and execs were saying that the next Superman film had to be darker to resonante with audiences. Then another "dark" DC property, rated R, underperformed and the exec's were soon perplexed.

They probably saw Green Lantern as their Iron Man, and tried to copy that style. Big special effects and a funny leading man.

He's good. Didn't he screw up the Wonder Woman movie without even directing it? I bet DC is happy they didn't let him sabotage any more of their characters, let alone to the extent Marvel let him sabotage the Avengers.

Yeah, they need to take a completely different direction. And given their track record they need to lower their degree of difficulty, and CGI could allow them to focus on story and character rather than "star wrangling." They already do a much better job on animation, and video games, they could really step it up.

The budget would be so much more manageable, lowering the expectations, and that level of control could make the turn-around-time on sequels, spin-offs and short promos and extra materials would be so much shorter than the more cumbersome Avengers. They could actually make more money in the long run, by sheer volume, all while giving a much needed shot in the arm to their lackluster theatrical CGI animation catalog.

It's too simple and would work too well, they'll never go for it.

Don't you think it would lend an all-ages iconic feel to the thing as well?

I'd love to see a classic Shazam movie, with the same sensibility as the Incredibles or Megamind.

I am looking forward to the Sonnenfeld Metalmen movie...
http://collider.com/barry-sonnenfeld-metal-men-movie/174772/