Whedon off Wonder Woman

[Klaus]

Maybe they're freeing the character rights so they can be used on TV?

Maybe we'll see them in other superhero movies?

Maybe we'll see them in a movie about some guy named "Jay", last name "Elay"?

 

[Umbran]

Makes you wonder...

Not really. Outside of a few Superman and Batman flicks, DC has never had a good record with movies.

 

[Jamdin]

Bummer for I was really looking towards Whedon's Wonder Woman.

 

[Agamon]

Maybe we'll see them in a movie about some guy named "Jay", last name "Elay"?

Never. Ever, ever. At least, not a good one. X-Men worked (well, sort of, it still focused on certain individuals too much) because they are a team, first and foremost. The JLA is single heroes with different backstories broght together as a team to stop menaces they can't stop individually. Unless each member had his or her own movie or two first, JLA just ain't going to happen.

 

[Ranger REG]

Not really. Outside of a few Superman and Batman flicks, DC has never had a good record with movies.

The same could be said of TV shows. The Flash, for example.

But compared to Marvel live-action TV shows (only one success: The Incredible Hulk starring Bill Bixby), they're ahead.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

It is odd and sad how much trouble the studios have with making a decent hero flick.

 

[ToddSchumacher]

I think its a combination of a few factors.

One: These moves require a LOT of money, as as the studios put up the money they, rightly, should have a say on how it is spent.

Two: There is difference in how regular people view comic books and the stories told, and how comic fans know how it is. Heck, even the difference in how comic readers read comics 30 years ago and now might have different views on any given hero.

Three: the studios, who want to get their money back, want as many regular people (or teenagers under 13) to see the film as possible. That means giving them (regular people) a story that the producers think will work. Not one that we (real fans) think is good.

And, of course, this even applies to movies that aren't super hero ones.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

I think its a combination of a few factors...

Yet, somehow they still seem more inept with them than with your average RomCom.

 

[Umbran]

Yet, somehow they still seem more inept with them than with your average RomCom.

Well, to be honest, Romantic Comedy is easier to do well. It is a well-understood genre, that doesn't have nearly the budget or adaptation issues.

The number of people on the business end of movies who understand the comics/superheroes genre is smaller. The number who understand the comics, and also understand how to adapt a comic into a decent movie, is even smaller. So, even with a good director (or writer or producer) just about every time the studio suits get involved, it is the addition of input from somenone who probably means very well, but who does not understand what it takes to succeed with the movie.

 

[Gnome Quixote]

The number of people on the business end of movies who understand the comics/superheroes genre is smaller. The number who understand the comics, and also understand how to adapt a comic into a decent movie, is even smaller. So, even with a good director (or writer or producer) just about every time the studio suits get involved, it is the addition of input from somenone who probably means very well, but who does not understand what it takes to succeed with the movie.

For an excellent (and very, very funny) illustration of this, see the portion of An Evening With Kevin Smith in which Smith discusses the difficulties he had in developing a (never-produced) Superman screenplay for Warner Bros., based on the Death-and-Return storyline of several years back. If you're even a casual comics fan, some of the demands made of him by executive producer Jon Peters will literally boggle your mind.