EDITORIAL: What Is Obviously The DC Cinematic Universe's Biggest "Issue".
I made this article to discuss what I think is the bigger issue with the DC cinematic universe. The answer is obvious and explains why using Marvel's method wouldn't make that much of a difference.
Hello everyone, my name is Shadowlordsalvage and this is my first ever article and editorial(it may be my only editorial).
Now I admit that I have said this before in comment sections, but I wanted to explain it further. I want to talk about why WB/DC seem to have mixed to poor receptions with most of their superhero films. I've heard differing opinions and accurate explanations for why the films seem to be either mediocre, just ok, or down right terrible, with the only exceptions being, Superman 1 and 2, The Dark Knight trilogy, V for Vendetta (Vertigo/DC), Watchmen(debatable), RED (the first one, debatable) and maybe some other non mainstream film(s). We can spend a great bit of time debating over whether or not Man of Steel is a good or bad film just like Superman Returns (not saying it was good, but it like others is debatable)as well as Constantine.
THE OBVIOUS ISSUE:
We can lay out a list of reasons for why Green Lantern, Jonah Hex, Catwoman and Steel were abysmal. In the end, the issues with these films are the same as any other bad film. In other words, the biggest issue with these films is the filmmakers themselves. I'm not talking about simply the company, I'm talking about "WHO THE COMPANY PICKS." The writers, directors and the actors they cast.
The company was slow to get a shared universe going(true); however, most of the DC films they get off the ground could've been successful if they had consistently good decision makers and truly talented filmmakers (who know what they're doing and understand the source material.
Example: Jonah Hex maybe a C-list DC character, but if the filmmakers were more faithful to the source material and didn't try to create some kind of WILD WILD WEST/Ghost Rider hybrid, the film could've been a good, gritty, western. If filmmakers like the Coen Brothers were the ones making it, it would've probably got nominated for Oscars like best screenwriting.
Catwoman was unnecessary, not to say there couldn't have been a spinoff focusing on the origins of Selina Kyle, but that was a poor film in and of itself.
Same for Steel, I wouldn't mind seeing a movie about Steel if is was a spinoff of a Death of Superman movie.
Had they been spinoffs of future Superman and Batman films, they would've been a precursor to a shared DC universe, WB/DC would've beaten Marvel to the punch then. However, the decision makers and the filmmakers screwed these films up.
People can say, "if only DC followed Marvel's plan they would be better." People also argue that, "it's too late for that and that they should stick with their own playbook." BUT here's thing, if the EXECUTION of said plan is poor, the plan is irrelevant as it won't make a difference if the films still suck.
Example: If every Marvel film from Ironman to the Avengers were terrible, their plan would not be praised. DC and Marvel would be in the same boat and both would look bad.
So why do Marvel studios and Disney seem to have more success and almost unanimous praise? The same with any other good entertaining film, good to decent writing, good to decent directing, and of course great casting. Their success is based on the plan's execution not simply the plan itself, not simply the direction itself. This is why I think the problem with WB/DC is not simply the plan, the plan while risky can actually succeed. The issue is the execution and who is writing, directing, casting, etc.
If Zack Snyder and David Goyer screwed up, it's not because the plan was necessarily bad, it's because of their abilities/skills and judgements as filmmakers. A lot goes into making a movie great if the focus is really just, "Getting it out there" then the results are more skeptical.
THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION:
WB/DC need to try and get the best most fitting people for the job, issue is that they need people who have proven to consistently deliver the goods. Christopher Nolan (whether one like's it or not) has never had an unanimously bad reception to his movies, from critics and audiences. Zack Snyder hit and miss, Goyer (both as writer and director)mostly misses with hits due to someone co-writing with him or him just writing the premise and someone else writes the script.
EX: Batman Begins Goyer co-wrote it, TDK and TDKR he only wrote the premise both the Nolan's wrote the scripts. Man of Steel was mostly all Goyer on the script, Nolan just helped with the premise. (So you got to wonder who's really responsible for a film's flaws and success).
WB should look at filmmakers like Rupert Wyatt (Rise of the Planet of the Apes), Alfonso Cuarion (Gravity, Children of Men), Duncan Jones (Moon, Source code), Matt Reeves (Let Me in, Cloverfield,Dawn of the Planet of the Apes), David Yates (Harry Potter 5-8). That's just a list of Directors, even if you don't agree most of them are pretty good at what they do and have proven it so far. I think they would elevate the DC universe with the right cast and writers.
I really hope Chris Tierro is a consistently good writer that will really help make the script better. I hope the Man of Steel sequel is much better and proves skeptics wrong; however, the difference between good movie and a bad movie is who's hired. Casting has been controversial, people feel it's going to be a mess. I just hope it does well enough to keep the franchise going, have solo spinoffs with more consistently good filmmakers.
: This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct
. ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and "safe harbor" provisions. CBM will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please contact us
for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. You may also learn more about our copyright and trademark policies HERE